p]iiiilinniillll»»lllimillininiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiimnininnni iiiiiiiiiiniinmininim|

| Dues for 1932

Annual Dues for 1932 Are Now Payable

This is the Treasurer’s first notice to all members that
dues for 1932 are now due and payable to the Treasurer

MR. W. M. ROSENE,

City State Bank,

Ogden, Iowa.

You are earnestly requested to remit at your earliest con-
venience, thus saving postage to the Club, and much time
and effort to the Treasurer. A receipt will be returned

only if requested.

Life Members $100.00

Sustaining Members 5.00

Active Members 2.50

Associate Members 1.50

The Club values the continued support of every member,
and every resignation is received with regret. In spite of
the depression and a very great loss in membership, we
have published a larger volume this year than in any pre-
ceding year of the organization — and without a deficit;
though, of course, we do not expect our bank balance to be
as large as at the close of last year. During 1931 the Club
received about one hundred new members and lost about
double that number. If there are any members at present
who feel inclined to raise their membership status from
Associate to Active, or from Active to Sustaining, it will
help materially to maintain the number of pages in the
Bulletin for the coming year.

In behalf of the Officers of the Club, the Wilson Bul-
letin extends greetings of the season to its readers, and
wishes to thank them for their loyalty and generous support.

fw|iiniiiiiiiii»«niim«imiimnnm»ii»|»»|>»|»|i|>|||||»|||»|||»|t|M<n||»iiMn«iim«iiin»innmnimnumumnmiininntifoT

ti iiiii iiim 1 1 111 11 >11 1 liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 111 1 1111 till 11 1 111 iiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinimiiiiiiiiiiiiiit 1111111111111111111111147

MAR 3 I 1932

THE

WILSON BULLETIN

A Quarterly Magazine Devoted to the Study
of Birds in the Field

and the Official Organ of the

WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB

Edited by

T. C. Stephens, Edit or -in-Chief

Myron H. Swenk Albert F. Ganier
Alfred M. Bailey R. D. Hissong

Volume XLIV

1932

Published Quarterly
by the

WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB

at

Sioux City, Iowa

PAST OFFICERS OF THE WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB

President

J. B. Richards, 1888-1889.

Lynds Jones, 1890-1893.

*Willard N. Clute, 1894.

R. M. Strong, 1894-1901.

Lynds Jones, 1902-1908.

F. L. Burns, 1909-1911.

W. E. Saunders, 1912-1913.

T. C. Stephens, 1914-1916.

W. F. Henninger, 1917.

Myron H. Swenk, 1918-1919.

R. M. Strong, 1920-1921.

Thos. L. IJankinson, 1922-1923.
Albert F. Ganier, 1924-1926.
Lynds Jones, 1927-1929.

J. W. Stack, 1930-1931.

J. M. Shaver, 1932-

V ice-President

C. C. Maxfield, 1893.

R. M. Strong, 1894.

Ned Hollister, 1895-1903.
W. L. Dawson, 1904-1905.
R. L. Baird, 1906-1908.
W. E. Saunders, 1909-1911
B. H. Swales, 1912-1913.

Geo. L. Fordyce, 1914-1919.

II. C. Oberholser, 1920-1921.
Dayton Stoner, 1922-1923.

Win. I. Lyon, 1924.

Thos. H. Whitney, 1925-1928.
George Miksch Sutton, 1929-1931.
Edwin L. Moseley, 1932-

Second Vice-President
Josselyn Van Tyne, 1932-

Secretary

Lynds Jones, 1888-1889.

J. Warren Jacobs, 1890-1891.
Willard N. Clute, 1892.

J. Warren Jacobs, 1893.

Wm. B. Caulk, 1894.

J. E. Dickinson, 1895-1897.

W. L. Dawson, 1898-1901.

John W. Daniel, Jr., 1902-1905.
Frank L. Burns, 1906.

T reasurer

R. M. Strong, 1892-1893.

Lynds Jones, 1894-1901.

F. L. Burns, 1902-1905.

B. H. Swales, 1906-1908.

W. F. Henninger, 1909-1913.

P. B. Coffin, 1914-1916.

Frank M. Phelps, 1917-1919.

Editor

Lynds Jones, 1888-1924.

T. C. Stephens.

Benj. T. Gault, 1907-1911.

C. W. G. Eilrig, 1912-1913.
Orpheus M. Schantz, 1914.
Thos. L. Hankinson, 1915-1916.
G. A. Abbott, 1917.

Albert F. Ganier, 1918-1922.
Gordon Wilson, 1923-1925.
Howard K. Gloyd, 1926-1928.
Jesse M. Shaver, 1929-1931.
Lawrence E. Hicks, 1932-

Jesse M. Shaver, 1929-1931.
Geo. L. Fordyce, 1920-1922.
Wm. I. Lyon, 1923.

Ben J. Blincoe, 1924-1926.

J. W. Stack, 1927-1929.

W. M. Rosene, 1930-

Frank L. Burns, 1901.

* Resigned.

MAR 3 1 1332

Vol. XLIV

MARCH, 1932

No. 1

THE

A Magazine of Field Ornithology

Published by the

WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB

at

SIOUX CITY, IOWA

Entered as Second-class Mail Matter, July 13, 1916, at the Postoffice at
Sioux City, Iowa, under Act of March 3, 1879.

CONTENTS

Nesting of the Bald Eagle By A. F. Ganier 1-9

The Influence of Temperature on Migration

By John S. Main 10-12

A Winter Robin Roost in Arkansas By J. D. Black 13-19

Curvature of Wing and Soaring Flight

By William Brewster Taber, Jr. 19-22

Charles W. and Titian R. Peale and the Ornithological
Section of the Old Philadelphia Museum

By Frank L. Burns 23-35

Editorial 36-37

General Notes " 38-49

Proceedings 50-64

THE WILSON BULLETIN

Published quarterly, in March, June, September, and December, as the official
organ of the Wilson Ornithological Club, at Sioux City, Iowa.

The current issue of the Wilson Bulletin is printed by the Verstegen Printing
Company, Sioux City, Iowa.

The Wilson Bulletin is sent to all members not in arrears for dues. The
subscription price is $1.50 a year, invariably in advance, in the United States.
Outside of the United States the subscription rate is $2.00. New subscriptions,
change of address, and applications for membership should be addressed to the
Secretary.

All articles and communications for publication, books and publications for
notice, and exchanges, should be addressed to the Editor.

Claims for lost and undelivered copies of the magazine may be addressed to
the Editor.

THE WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB

Founded December 3, 1888. Named after Alexander Wilson, the first American
ornithologist, and called the “Father of American Ornithology.”

The officers for the current year are:

President — Prof. J. M. Shaver, George Peabody College for Teachers, Nash-
ville, Tenn.

First Vice-President — Prof. E. L. Moseley, State Teachers College, Bowling
Green, Ohio.

Second Vice-President — Dr. Josselyn Van Tyne, Museum of Zoology, Ann
Arbor, Mich.

Treasurer — Mr. W. M. Rosene, City Slate Bank, Ogden, Iowa.

Secretary — Mr. Lawrence E. Hicks, Botany Dept., O. S. U., Columbus, Ohio.
Editor — T. C. Stephens, Morningside College, Sioux City, Iowa.

The membership dues are — Sustaining membership, $5.00; active membership,
$2.50; associate membership, $1.50 per year.

The following societies are affiliated organizations:

The Nebraska Ornithologists’ Union.

The Iowa Ornithologists’ Union.

The Kentucky Ornithological Society.

The Tennessee Ornithological Society.

THE WILSON BULLETIN

A QUARTERLY MAGAZINE OF ORNITHOLOGY
Published by the Wilson Ornithological Club

Vol. XLIY MARCH, 1932 No. 1

Vol. XXXIX (New Series) Whole Number 158

NESTING OF THE BALD EAGLE

BY A. F. GANIER

My first expedition in quest of a nest of the Bald Eagle (Haliaetus
leucocephalus ) dates back to some thirty years ago. At that time I
was living in the lower Mississippi Valley in the little city of Vicks-
burg, Mississippi, when word was brought to me of an eagle’s nest
about twenty miles above town at a lake which lay secluded among the
cypress swamps. I at once began to lay plans and entertain visions of
collecting the eggs for my fast growing collection. Ben, my partner
in the egg collecting game, was a poor climber himself, but flattered
my youthful confidence by picturing what a mere everyday affair it
would be for me to scale the mere hundred feet or so, and then how
thrilling it would be to look over the brim at two great white eggs of
the King of Birds. The day of days finally arrived, the 5th of April,
1899, to be exact, and we sallied forth well loaded down with climbing
irons, ropes, lunch, camera, and last but not least a box filled with
cotton in which to pack the eggs. We left the train at an obscure
little station and, after inquiring the way to Cypress Lake, we launched
forth on a four-mile trek through an unbroken forest. Our boyish
spirits were keyed up to the highest pitch and I never recall a more
pleasant tramp, with sunlight breaking through the trees overhead and
woodland voices all about us. As we approached the lake, however,
our troubles began. We were beginning to tramp through shallow
water and before open water was reached we were knee deep and all
but lost in a jungle of “button willow” bushes. No one lived at the
lake and no boat could be found, so we began a tedious tramp, peer-
ing overhead meanwhile, trying to locate the eagle’s nest among the
tree-tops. To make a long story short, we finally came upon the eyrie
at three o’clock in the afternoon, and to our dismay we saw that it had
been built among the topmost branches of a giant cypress tree, larger
than we had ever dreamed of. The trunk was about eight feet in
diameter at shoulder height, and since it was approximately sixty feet
up to the first limb we decided that after all the eggs weren’t worth

4

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

the effort and that it was about time to start back to the railway sta-
tion anyway.

A good many years passed between that first eagle’s nest and my
second. A good many events crowded into my life other than bird
study and, too, I may have been influenced by the impression I had
gotten to the effect that an eagle’s nest was not a climbable affair
after all. And so it happened that it was not until 1919 that I had the
pleasure of looking upward into another great cypress tree to view
my second nest. The site of this nest was in the low forest which
borders Reelfoot Lake, Tennessee, at its upper end. This lake, lying in
the extreme northwest corner of the state and close to the Mississippi,
was formed by an earthquake in 1812. It is from two to four miles
wide and about twelve miles long. Cypress trees, which were sub-
merged when the lake was found, continue to grow where the water
is less than three or four feet deep and large areas are grown up in
saw-grass. “Black Slough " is a shallow wooded swamp in the low
forest, above referred to, and here in a large old cypress was the first
of three nests which I succeeded in finding at this lake. At the time
of my visit, on May 30, the young had just left the nest. It was con-
structed almost entirely of dead cypress limbs and twigs and, due to
the decay resistant quality of this wood, the nest, though old, was in
good condition. The interior lining was composed largely of cypress
bark which, like cedar bark, is very fibrous and may be torn from the
trees in long and pliable strips. The outer portions of the nest, the
limbs below and the ground underneath were much soiled w ith excreta
ejected by the young before they left. This description of a nest is
quite applicable to seven others which it has been my good fortune
to find.

The next nest located was at the southwest corner of the lake, in
a very similar environment and about five miles southwest of Black
Slough. It was built near the top of one of the largest cypress trees
I have ever seen and which was dead at that time. A conservative
estimate of its height would be 125 feet. It reminded me of the nest
visited when I was a hoy so I made no attempt to scale its dizzy
height. My visit here was on May 26, 1921, and as in the previously
described nest, the young had already taken flight. I believe that this
site had been selected for the reason that within a few hundred feet was
a long established nesting colony comprising some two hundred and
fifty nests of the Great Blue Heron and fifty nests of the Double-
crested Cormorant. The young of these birds doubtless come in quite

Fic. 1. Nest of the Bald Eagle in the “Scatters,” Reelfoot Lake, Tenn

6

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

handy to vary the bill of fare of the young eagles and of course the
inhabitants of the rookery can do nothing less than pay tribute.

The third and last nest at Reelfoot, I found well out into the lake,
about two miles east of the one last described. It differed from the
others in that its location was quite open, being built in a living
cypress in a narrow fringe of these trees which form one of “the
scatters”, projecting far out into the open water. The eyrie was easily
visible from a distance and the tree was not a particularly large one.
The nest was some sixty feet above the shallow water in which the tree
grew. On the date of my visit, May 24, 1923, the one large young
bird which the nest held, appeared to be quite capable of taking its
first flight and spent most of its time perched on limbs several feet
from the nest (Fig. 1). Many irresponsible hunters and fishermen
visit this lake, some wishing nothing better than to take a pot shot at
an eagle, so it is quite probable that as many young eagles are shot
from this nest as leave it on full-fledged wings. I have endeavored,
on my several trips to Reelfoot, to do missionary work on behalf of
these splendid birds but find it difficult to convince irresponsible
people, chiefly visitors, that they should refrain from shooting an
eagle.

For some years I had been getting reports of a swamp-surrounded
lake some twenty miles southwest of Memphis, Horseshoe Lake by
name, where more than one Bald Eagle was said to breed. I had pretty
well comhed the Tennessee lowlands and had come to the conclusion
that nowhere else in this area than at Reelfoot, could a nest of this
species still be found. On March 9, 1930, Mr. B. B. Coffey, of Mem-
phis, and myself, with a small group of local bird students, visited
Horseshoe Lake and spent the day with interesting results. On arrival,
we embarked in a motor boat and after a twenty-minute cruise, had
the pleasure of sighting an eagle’s nest built near the edge of a low
wooded island around which the lake made nearly a complete circle.
This island was almost a mile long and was covered with virgin forest,
immense white oaks predominating. It is owned by a hunting club
which has for some time given protection to the eagles and which has
also stocked the place with deer.

As our boat neared the shore, we had the pleasure of seeing a
fine white-headed eagle sitting on a branch near the nest and another
on the wing nearhy. We landed, and as we approached the eyrie both
birds circled about within a few hundred yards of us, giving vent to
their shrill cries; but after a time they settled on trees some distance
away showing no further concern. I supposed that this nest held eggs in

Nesting of the Bald Eagle

7

Photograph by B. B. Coffey.

Fig. 2. Climbing to a nest of the Bald Eagle in the Mississippi River
Swamp Country. The rim ol this eyrie was 103 feet from the ground. The
nest held young birds, the eggs having been laid about Christmas time.

8

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

course of incubation, because of the fact that March 1st had marked
the laying date of a pair in Arkansas, some sixty miles to the north,
a few years before. The nest was built about seventy feet from the
ground in a large elm (Fig. 4). The tree presented a swollen place
in its trunk, some distance above the ground, which made climbing a
difficult job, so I postponed the attempt, hoping to find another nest
more accessible. After a short search we found a second nest not far
away, built in an immense oak, but since no eagles were about we
passed it by. Cruising along the shore, flushing docks of ducks and
cormorants here and there, we espied a third nest, also on the island,
and drove the boat through the willows to the shore. Wading several
shallow sloughs we approached the nest tree and again had the thrill
of seeing a fine white-headed eagle leave it, joining its mate in the air.
The pair then sailed around above us within a few hundred feet of
our heads, voicing disapproval and giving us a wonderful example of
how bold these birds will become if afforded protection. I resolved to
climb this tree without searching further. The tree was a white oak
and the nest, measured later, was 103 feet above the ground. Due to
the trunk being clad with rough, loose bark, progress was slow and it
required nearly an hour of gruelling work to reach the nest. Resting
on a branch a few feet below the big platform (Fig. 2) I surveyed
the forest about me. To the west, at a distance of a half mile and at
the far end of the island. I was pleasantly surprised to see still another
eagle’s nest (Fig. 3) and this, when later visited, was found to be oc-
cupied. It was built in a large white oak about eighty feet up.

A stiff chilling breeze and swaying branches made the last ten
feet of my climb more or less of an adventure, but I finally succeeded
in working my head and shoulders through the rim of the nest and
looking upon the eyrie. I was totally unprepared for the sight which
greeted me for there, standing before me with mouths open and feathers
bristling, were two young eagles nearly as large as their parents. They
were apparently nearly ready to fly and were as black as vultures.
After noting the nest carefully I descended and we visited nests number
four and number one. Both of these were found to have two young
which, as well as I could judge from the tops of nearby trees, were
of about the same age as those more closely examined. By compari-
son with the pictures taken by Professor F. H. Herrick, I judged them
to be about fifty days old. Allowing thirty-five days for incubation
it would appear that the eggs of these three pairs were laid prior to
Christmas, a date rather surprising for any location north of the lati-
tude of southern Louisiana.

Nesting of the Bald Eagle

9

The valley immediately adjacent to the Mississippi River, from
Memphis southward, is doubtless the last great stronghold of Bald
Eagles in the interior of the United States. The meandering river itself
contains many wooded islands and “old rivers”, formed by cut-offs,
while nearby are numerous extensive cypress swamps and lakes of
considerable size, some of which are bordered by low woodlands and
uninhabited areas. Such of this area as is on the river side of the

Photographs by Coffey and Ganier.

Figs. 3 and 4. Two nests ot the Bald Eagle near Memphis. They were
built in giant oak and elm trees and had been in use for years.

great levees is usually under water through the nesting season and this

affords protection against human visitation. More than a dozen pairs

are known to breed here, and a more complete census of their numbers

is now under way.

There is some evidence to support a belief that the Bald Eagle has
bred and may still nest in cliffs in the mountainous sections of Ten-
nessee, North Carolina, and Georgia, this evidence being the taking of
this species there during the early spring.

Nashville. Tenn.

10

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

THE INFLUENCE OF TEMPERATURE ON MIGRATION

BY JOHN S. MAIN

In studying the spring migration of birds it is interesting to con-
sider the influence of the weather as affecting the time of their arrival,
either at their final destination or at any given point along the way.

At the outset questions arise: What part does the weather play in
initiating the northward movement? What part does temperature play ?
Assuming that a rising temperature at the proper season encourages
migration, how high must it rise above normal in order to become
effective? Does abnormally warm weather at the starting point cause
an abnormally early departure? Does the temperature that prevails
in the region toward which the birds are traveling affect the time of
their arrival?

Most of these questions have already been discussed at length
and have perhaps been answered as definitely as it will ever be pos-
sible to do, but unusual conditions arise from time to time which illus-
trate the play of cause and effect and help to confirm our opinions
if they do not add greatly to our knowledge. Such is the case with
certain events of the past two winters (1929-30 and 1930-31) and it
is the striking contrast afforded by them which forms the subject of
this paper.

Speaking for the vicinity of Madison, Wisconsin, where the writer
resides, weather conditions during the winter of 1929-30 were, for the
most part, in no way remarkable. There were fifteen sub-zero days,
seven of them being —11°, or more. Once it reached —20°, and again
—24°. The mean temperature for December and January was 2° below
normal; from February 1 to 18 it was 4° above normal. On the latter
date, however, a decided change took place. The mercury rose rapidly.
On the 19th it reached 56° above zero, on the 20th, 57°, on the 21st,
60°. For five successive days the maximum all-time heat records were
broken, the week ending February 25 showing a mean temperature of
28° above normal!

How did th is affect migration? Let us take for examples the
Bluebird, Robin, Meadowlark, Bronzed Grackle, and Killdeer, which,
with the Red-winged Blackbird and Song Sparrow are the first of the
small birds to arrive. Bluebirds and Killdeers appeared February
21, Robins and Meadowlarks on February 22, and Bronzed Grackles
on February 26. None of these birds ordinarily arrive much before
March 10, and the dates above given are, with one or two possible
exceptions in the case of the Bluebird* from a week to ten days earlier

Influence of Temperature on Migration

11

than any previous records. Il may be added that on February 24
several Song Sparrows and two flocks of redwings were seen, together
with large numbers of Herring Gulls, mergansers, golden-eyes, Mal-
lards, Black Ducks, Pintails, and Coots, affording abundant evidence
of a widespread movement into this area during that week. For the
purpose of this study, I am confining myself to the five species first
named because of the fact that, with rare exceptions, none of them
winter in this region and the first individuals seen in the spring can

he assumed to he migrants, especially if two or more individuals of a
species are observed in different localities on the same day.

Let us now turn to the winter just passed, that of 1930-31. It
was indeed a very exceptional one. There were only five sub-zero
days. The coldest was —4°, setting an all-time record; the mean tem-
perature for December, January, and February was the highest in 41
years; the month o) February was the warmest in 49 years. February,
moreover, was entirely free of storms, the weather generally fair, the
ground hare of snow. In brief, conditions more favorable to migration
could hardly he imagined.

With this state of affairs existing it might reasonably he expected
that there would he an unusually early return of the first migrants, as

12

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

occurred in February of the previous year. On the contrary, of the
five species first mentioned three did not appear until the first week
in March, and the others not until the second week, the dates being as
follows: Robins, March 4; Bronzed Grackles, March 6; Meadowlarks,

March 7; Killdeers, March 9; Bluebirds, March 12. While somewhat
earlier than usual, these dates were, on the average, two weeks later
than the arrival dates in 1930. What is the explanation?

The answer to this, and possibly to the other questions raised in
the opening paragraph of this article, will, I believe, be found in the
sub-joined chart, which pictures for each year the conditions that pre-
vailed in the regions to the southward during the period referred to.
It shows that in both 1930 and 1931 substantially normal tempera-
tures prevailed during the week ending February 18. In 1931 the
temperatures for the succeeding week were only a little above normal
throughout the wintering range. In 1930, however, the conditions were
strikingly different. As shown by the chart, the temperatures during
the week in question were excessively high all the way from Madison
to the Gulf — so high as to incite the birds to an abnormally early de-
parture and also to hasten the progress of their journey.

The various cities named on the chart were selected merely to show
the temperatures that prevailed in certain areas, not to indicate any
definite migration route. Indianapolis, for instance, has approxi-
mately the latitude of Springfield, Illinois, and their temperatures
were much the same. Similarly, Mobile is made the southern terminus
of the graph for Lhe purpose of showing the extent of the warm wave
of 1930, not to suggest that any of these migrants started from there.
It is, however, probable that the Bluebirds and Meadowlarks wintered
that year as far south as southern Illinois, while the Killdeer, Bronzed
Grackles, and even the Robins may have come from Kentucky or
Tennessee.

The distance covered within the week would probably be 250-
450 miles, indicating a much more rapid rate of travel than has com-
monly been assumed for the early migrants.

All temperature records on the chart are taken from U. S. Weather
Bureau reports.

Madison, Wisconsin.

A Winter Robin Roost in Arkansas

13

A WINTER ROBIN ROOST IN ARKANSAS

BY J. D. BLACK

During the three recent winters (1926-27, 1927-28, and 1928-29)
there have been roosts of varying size including the common and
southern varieties of the Robin (T urdus migratorius migratorius
and T. rn. achrusterus ) situated in and around Winslow, and during
the past winter the writer had the opportunity to study their habits
closely, the 1928 roost being only about a mile north of his home
and containing at one time over 250,000 individuals.

Winslow, known throughout the south as “The Top of the Ozarks”,
has an elevation of 1734 feet at a central point in the village, and the
surrounding territory, or rather most of it, is considerably higher,
some places being as high as 2500 feet above sea level. The immed-
iate vicinity of Winslow is covered with deciduous growth, the various
oaks, hickories, maples, etc., being the most common trees. It has
been, and still is, a considerable lumber center, with great numbers of
trees being cut, leaving a heavy growth of underbrush over a large
proportion of the land. The 1928 roost, being occupied from October
22 to December 16, 1928, was situated on a hill, or hills, at the head
of a small ravine, facing east, although some of the birds roosted in
the ravine itself, at an elevation of about 1800 feet.

The roost, when at its height, covered about a mile square, the
birds never concentrating as they did in 1926, although being suffi-
ciently thick to give the impression of immense numbers — concerning
which we will deal later. The tract of land occupied has been closely
cut over, leaving only occasional trees standing among the dense
undergrowth, but the slopes of the ravine are well covered with small
trees — nearly all second growth timber.

The first Robins arrived on October 22, and these were augmented
by a few others before the first check as to the number present was
made on the evening of the 24th, when an estimated number of 4,000
went into the roost. By the 28th there were at least 25,000 birds
present, for six observers, covering less than half the territory sur-
rounding the roost, reported 16,948 birds Hying into the roosting
grounds on that date.

The last actual check of the birds flying into the roost was made
on November 7, when six observers, all well trained, covering only the
south, southeast, east, and southwest, with the west half of the south
section, the west, northwest, north, and northeast not being watched,
listed over 74,000 birds going in. The estimates were carefully com-
puted and the lowest figure adopted in all cases. The writer was in

14

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

the roost at the time of the flight and knows that more birds arrived
from the north, northeast, and northwest, than from other directions,
and believes that an estimate of 150,000 birds at that date is extremely
low. The figure probably would have exceeded 200,000. Many more
bird s arrived after November 7 and at the time of their departure,
on December 16, there were at least 250,000 birds roosting on this
tract.

Due credit should be given here for the assistance of Robert
Adkins, Paul Vandiver, Allen Land, and my brother, Olan H. Black,
for their valuable assistance in helping check the flight of the birds,
and to Paul Vandiver, Omer A. Winn, and Leonard Wallace (the last
named accidentally shot and killed himself November 18, while hunt-
ing bobcats within the boundaries of the roost) for their generous
assistance in the banding work carried on at night.

A study of the time of arrival of the birds at the roost, in rela-
tion to the direction from which they came, together with their speed
of flight, and the time required for all the birds to pass over, leads to
several interesting conjectures as to the distance covered in their search
for food.

The check of October 28, being the most detailed from this stand-
point, and covering the widest range of observation points, will be
used to bring out these facts, the larger flights on later dates differ-
ing only in the number of individuals involved.

On this date my brother and Paul Vandiver worked together on
the southeast, Robert Adkins handled the southwest, and I the east,
while others were posted along the west, but it is regrettable that these
observers (on the west) left their posts too soon for their work to be
of any value on this point, and their reports have been eliminated.

From the southeast the first bird arrived at 4:25, and the flight
proper commenced at 4:32, continuing almost steadily until 5:22, with
the majority of the birds passing between 4:46 and 5:10. Seven
thousand, eight hundred and ninety-two birds were listed from that
direction, 3,000 from 4:56 to 5:00 r. M.

From the east I recorded the first bird at 3:45, five stragglers
going in at that time, and five more at 3:49, while the flight proper
commenced at 4:31, with a flock of 100, and continued until 5:10.
The main body passed from 4:40 until 5:05, with 2,400 going over
during the five-minnte period from 4:45 to 4:50. The observations
of Robert Adkins on the southwest coincided closely with those of
myself, and were, on the average, ten minutes earlier throughout than
the southeast reports.

A Winter Robin Roost in Arkansas

15

The birds flew at an average speed of twenty-five miles per hour,
being timed in various manners, on several different dates, the early
arrivals sometimes flying as slowly as twenty miles per hour, and the
late ones as fast as thirty.1 On cloudy, dark days the birds would fly
somewhat faster than on clear days, and would come in about fifteen
minutes earlier. On clear days they usually made considerable com-
motion flying over, while on cloudy days they scarcely made a sound,
flying as though the most important object in their lives was to get into
the roost and comfortably settled before darkness overtook them.

The birds that came in from the southeast, and which arrived on
the average ten minutes later than the others, all passed directly over
Winslow and a strip of land from two to three miles wide that was
barren, or nearly so, of the food they demanded. This distance pos-
sibly explains the difference in the time of arrival, but does not exactly
coincide with the ten minute variation in the time. It is evident that
they ranged slightly farther than the others.

Assuming that the Robins all left their feeding grounds at the
same time, and traveled at the speed of fifteen miles per hour, occa-
sional stops included, (flight speed of 25 miles per hour, allowance
thus being made for rests, whether they were taken or not cannot he
determined definitely, but it is supposed they did), and assuming that
the first arrivals fed nearby, the conclusion would he reached that at
least part of the birds fed at a distance of twelve and a half miles
from the roost — the speed of High t being fifteen miles per hour and
the period of flight covering fifty minuLes over the southeastern sector.
These are, of course only approximate figures, but have been pretty
well substantiated by reports from points ten to fifteen miles away of
flocks of Robins flying toward Winslow in the evening and appearing
again from that direction in the morning. Some of the birds that
appeared from the east during the first fifteen minutes of the actual
flights often were seen coming from the trees of the first mountain
east of the point of observation, while the late arrivals always were
flying high and straight, as though from a great distance.

The birds lived, for the most part, on the berries of the Rlack
Gum ( Myassa sylvatica ) during their stay here, although they con-

iTwo methods of calculating the speed of flight were used. The first method
recjuired two observers, with synchronized watches, located at different points.
A given bird was timed by each observer as it passed his station, and the records
were later compared. The second method was operated by a single observer who
timed a flying bird as it passed two points a known distance apart. The first
method was discarded as unsatisfactory, and figures derived by the second method
are used in this paper.

16

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

sumed vast quantities of the small Fox Grape, as well as various other
berries that were available at that time of the year.

The Black Gum produced enormous quantities of berries last
season and thus furnished food for these birds for a considerable pe-
riod of time, the only logical explanation for their long stay here, and
the reason for their leaving as well; for after the 18th of December
hardly a berry was left on any of the gum trees I saw, and the same
condition was reported by others for several miles around Winslow.
The birds were observed to go into the roost in the same vast numbers
on the evening of December 16, but not so much as a single bird was
again seen until February 18, when they re-appeared in small num-
bers for the breeding season.

Most interesting to me of all was the behavior of the brids in
the roost in the evening as they came in, and I spent several evenings
in this study, making photographs of the birds while in the roost. Two
typical days were the 30th of October and November 7.

To quote from my notes of October 30: “Robins were every-

where, and thousands more coming in all the time. Robins flying
from the north, east, south, and west in continual streams, there being
Robins coming to rest in trees nearby, others flying over hunting for
suitable resting places, and still more Robins coming into sight on
the horizon.”

“They were in a singing mood and sometimes as many as five or
six hundred would be singing at the same time! There was also a
continual chattering and chirping as the birds settled down, this being
underway when 1 arrived and still going on when I left.’

Again on November 7, when there were many more birds present :
“While the boys were checking the flight this evening, I was again
on the hill where the Robins were settling and it was marvelous to
watch, with many, many birds coming in. I arrived on the hill about
4:30 and left an hour later, and aside from the continual chirping
and chattering the birds made another sound — like that of rain falling
on dried leaves — caused by the birds’ wings brushing the leaves as
they went in and out of the hushes. This sound was continuous and
very noticeable. They were singing very little this evening and never
did I notice more than ten or twelve birds singing at the same time.”

On an occasion or two I firmly believe that I heard as many as a
thousand of these birds singing at the same time, the song accompanied
by the rushing sound of wings; and the din of their incessant chatter-
ing as they settled down was a sound that made a deep and lasting
impression on my mind — one that I will be able to recall vividly many

A Winter Robin Roost in Arkansas

17

years from now. The birds that were singing would invariably seek
the upper limbs of the large lealless trees, and sometimes I have seen
forty or fifty birds singing in a single tree. You who have thrilled
at the song of a single Robin in the springtime, can, possibly, imagine
the effect of a thousand of these gifted vocalists in full song during
the bleak days of early winter.

There was almost every conceivable plumage and type of Robin
in the roost. Many semi-melanistic birds were there, very dark speci-
mens, one being observed that possessed glossy black under tail cov-
erts, while the others (of the dark type bird) usually had a blackish
effect on the back and the rufous of the breast was considerably
darker than the typical variety which breeds here. There was a third
type — besides the common and the dark plumaged birds — which I
have never been able to convince myself was referable to either
migratorius or achrusterus , and certainly not the western variety
(propinquus) . They were considerably larger than the ordinary Robin
and very pale, the feathers being distinctly edged with whitish, the
rufous of the breast in some cases being exceptionally faint, and the
white spots on the tail very large. All three types of birds roosted
separately and were decidedly different in their behavior when cap-
tured. We knew the birds as Types One, Two, and Three, in the older
described, (Type One, the blackish birds; Type Two, the typical mi-
gratorius and achrusterus; and Type Three, the large, pale birds),
and found this a convenient way of referring to them.

With the assistance of the helpers previously mentioned I caught
and banded an even hundred birds, all of which were reported as
migratorius , because of the fact that there were so many hybrids and
phases of plumage present that it was impossible to classify the birds
properly, particularly at night, as to the subspecies. Type One never
made a sound when captured and these birds were the delight of the
entire banding crew. They seemed to roost in more open localities
than either of the other two types, while the large whitish birds, the
Type Three, were exceedingly difficult to capture, being very wary,
always the first to take wing, always screaming loudly when netted,
and roosting in the most inaccessible portions of the cover.

The birds banded were captured, in most instances, with a large,
specially constructed net, much on the order of a butterfly net, only
many times stronger, and somewhat larger. Some birds were caught
by hand, and a few in a very small net, which was particularly useful
in the very dense underbrush, where it was impossible to take the
larger net, much less attempt to use it.

18

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

Dry, moonlight nights were excellent times to observe the restless
traits of these birds, but it was impossible to even approach them on
such occasions, they taking alarm a full hundred yards ahead, and fly-
ing off into the night in flock after flock; they made a roaring noise
like thunder as thousands of birds took wing. They would occasionally
fly a considerable distance but usually stopped, even on bright nights,
after a flight of one or two hundred yards, and on dark nights they
would go only a short distance.

The best time for banding work was on a very dark night, just
after a rain* when the leaves underfoot were damp, allowing one to
walk without making a crackling sound. Our best work was done in
about three hours on such a night, when we banded thirty-nine birds.
We would leave a burning lantern in the old timber road — this was
necessary to keep from becoming lost — and would work on either side
of the road with flashlights, spotting the bird and netting him, in this
manner sometimes catching two at a time. Only one injury, a broken
leg, resulted during the entire period, and this was caused by inex-
perience on the part of the captor, who became very adept after this
accident. The bird injured was a large pale bird, belonging to Type
Three, but the specimen was not preserved. The disturbance caused
by a capture was great, but the birds were very capable of flight in
the night, and soon were again at rest.

Both Barred and Great-horned Owls preyed continually upon the
Robins, as did the bobcats, and house cats that had become feral.
Red-tailed Hawks were usually to be seen sailing over as the birds
came in late in the evening, but I never noticed any disturbance caused
by the hawks, nor did they seem interested in the many Robins flying
about.

The deep* gutteral “meow’s” of the bobcats as they stalked their
prey nearby and that almost terrifying snarl as they made the kill
furnished a regular thrill that served to make the night work interest-
ing. Assured by old hunters that they were perfectly harmless, I was
confident that they would not attack; yet being continually followed
by from one to four of these animals as they softly padded along
uttering a regular purring “meow” always made me uneasy.

The most blood curdling sound of the woods was made, however,
not by the cats, hut by the Barred Owl, when after killing a bird he
would let forth a medley of unearthly hoots, squawks, and screams
that sounded as if the demons of Pandemonium were paying a per-
sonal visit to the roosting grounds.

Curvature of Wing and Soaring Flight

19

On several occasions both species of owls as well as the cats
would make kills so near that the dying sounds made by the Robins
could he heard distinctly, the cats being particularly unmindful of
our presence in this respect, one cat killing three birds within twenty-
five feet of a party of four one night within a very few minutes. The
toll these raptores and cats collected from the flock was enormous.

A resume of the study produces these evident facts:

First, that the birds of the entire country — as shown by plumage
variation — flock and feed together during the winter season, hut segre-
gate into small bunches, probably family groups and units of such, of
their own race, at night.

Second, that in feeding they cover a radius of at least twelve miles.
Thus the birds of a single roost range and feed over a territory of
somewhat more than 452 square miles, at the least estimate.

Third, that their migration during the winter is decidedly irregular
and determined solely* or nearly so, by the presence of desirable food.

And Fourth, that in handing together to protect themselves from
their enemies they defeat their own purpose, as do most other birds
with this habit, and, instead, open themselves to the united attack of
every possible enemy for miles around.

Winslow, Arkansas.

CURVATURE OF WING AND SOARING FLIGHT

BY WILLIAM BREWSTER TABER, JR.

In his paper, “The Soaring of Raptorial Birds”,1 Mr. Palmer has
brought our attention to the fact that soaring is made possible by
upward moving air currents. However, in his explanation of the
phenomenon he considers the wing to he flat. I would like to point
out that the concave curvature of the under surface of bird wings is an
essential factor in soaring flight, and the effects derived therefrom.
The principle involved is identical with the principle of the impulse
steam or water turbine which has been utilized in a commercial way
by mechanical engineers for a hundred years or more.

In order to understand the principle it will he necessary to resort
to a diagram employing the devices which engineers use. In figure 6
the heavy curved line CD represents the cross section of a bird wing,
C being the thick, front edge. The bird is travelling to the left, hori-
zontal to the ground as shown by the direction of the arrow above it.

1 Wilson Bulletin, March, 1931, pp. 18-24.

20

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

The letter D is the hack edge of the wing (the tips of the secondary
wing feathers) .

In this whole discussion it must ever be kept in mind that the
bird is entirely free from the ground, that the direction of air currents
as observed from the ground does not affect the flight, but that flight
is affected only by the relative direction of the air currents in relation
to the wing. So as to make this more clear let us imagine that the
bird is soaring in a horizontal position a mile above the earth, and
that you, gentle reader, are a very minute creature, say a louse,
perched on the front edge of the wing at C. Then the direction of the
air current as observed by you would be identical with the direction
of the current upon the bird wing. The fine lines in the diagram

■<

such as AC or EF represent the velocities and directions of the air cur-
rents in relation to the wing. The direction of the current is shown
by the arrow on the fine representing that particular current, and the
velocity of the current is represented by the length of the line.

Now to simplify matters let us consider our bird to be soaring to
the left in an exactly horizontal direction in a current of air exactly
straight up from the surface of the earth. The speed of the current
upwards and its direction is represented by the line BC , the speed and
the direction of the air rushing past the wing to the right is repre-
sented by the line AB. But since both air currents are acting on the
wing at the same time, to you perched on the edge of the wing at C.
there would seem to be only one current blowing and that would be
in the direction of AC and its velocity is represented by the length of
4C. It is easy to understand then, that so far as the effect upon the
wing is concerned there is only one current acting upon it, and this is

Curvature of Wing and Soaring Flight

21

represented in direction and speed by the line AC. In technical lan-
guage the engineer calls this line AC the resultant of the two com-
ponents AB and BC. If you can completely grasp this idea the rest
is easy.

From the diagram it is evident, that under the particular condi-
tions illustrated, the resultant current AC is of such a direction that it
just slips in under the edge of the wing at C, sweeps around under
the curved surface and off at D in the direction DF. Let us now sup-
pose an ideal condition in which there is no friction between the cur-
rent and the wing. Then the current leaves the wing at D with exactly
the same speed at which it enters at C. Therefore I have drawn the
line DF exactly the same length as the line AC. Now what effect has
the change in direction of the current had upon the wing? To discover
this it is necessary to separate the line DF into two components, one
vertical and the other horizontal, for we wish to find out if the change
in direction of the current caused by the curvature of the under sur-
face of the wing tends to overcome the force of gravity which acts
vertically (hence the vertical component), and tends to thrust the bird
forward in the direction in which it is soaring (hence the horizontal
component). These two components of the line DF are DE and EF.
In other words the effect of the velocity of the current acting on the
wing as represented by DF is equivalent to the combined effects of the
velocities of two distinct currents, one acting straight downward with
a velocity represented by DE, and the other straight backward with a
velocity represented by EE.

Now it can he seen that the total lifting effect upon the bird is
due not only to the lifting effect of the rising air current as repre-
sented by BC hut in addition there is a lifting effect caused by the
change in direction of the current due to the curved under surface of
the wing, and this lifting effect is proportional to the length of the
velocity line DE. Thus the total lifting effect is proportional to BC
plus DE, which is considerably greater than BC by itself. If the bird
is to maintain its altitude and still soar in a horizontal direction, BC
plus DE must be of sufficient velocity to produce a lifting effect just
great enough to overcome the force of gravity. If a greater lifting
effect is produced the bird will rise. If a lesser lifting effect is pro-
duced the bird will lose altitude.

Now let us discuss the horizontal motion of the bird. By compar-
ing the lines AB and EE it is readily seen that EF is longer than AB.
Since the horizontal component of the line representing the velocity

22

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

of the air rushing out from the back edge of the wing, that is EF, is
greater than the horizontal component of the line representing the
velocity of the air rushing in under the front edge of the wing, there
must be a thrust forward caused by this increase of velocity. The
thrust forward will be therefore proportional to the difference in the
length of the lines EF and AB. As in this particular ideal case there
is no friction, the bird’s velocity forward would be increased.

In practice, however, there is always some friction. Then too
there is some loss of energy caused by eddying air currents under the
front edge of the wing at C due to the resultant air current AC having
such a direction that it does not exactly slip under the front edge.
However it must be said that birds are aide to make remarkably large
adjustments of the slope of the wings in relation to the direction of
llight as is so plainly shown in the admirable photograph of the
Common Tern by Olin S. Pettingill, Jr.2 Also there can be no doubt
but that adjustments of the slope of the wings are automatically and
continually made during soaring flight even though they may be so
slight as to be unobservable by a person watching the bird. In spite
of the quick and automatic adjustments that are continually being made
there must nevertheless be in actual flight some losses caused by eddies
and friction. Therefore DF can never be quite as great as AC and
consequently the components DF and EF must be somewhat shorter
Lhan as shown. If the sum of BC plus the true DF is of sufficient
magnitude to overcome the force of gravity the bird will rise, if not
the bird will lose altitude. If it is only just enough to overcome the
force of gravity the bird will just maintain its height. If the true EF
is greater than AB the bird will increase its horizontal speed, if equal
to AB it will just maintain its horizontal speed, if less than AB it will
lose in horizontal speed.

There are countless adjustments and combinations of adjustments
of wings, tail, position of head and legs whereby the bird may control
the thrust forward and upward, which are too intricate and complex
to discuss at present. However important these adjustments may lie to
successful soaring flight, it is certain that the essential factor is the
concave curvature of the under surface of the wing, by means of which
the directions of the air currents are changed, causing the necessary
lift and forward thrust.

Greenwood Farm,

Kansas, III.

'-’Wilson Bulletin, September, 1931, Fig. 40, page 170.

Charles W. and Titian R. Peale

23

CHARLES W. AND TITIAN R. PEALE
AND THE ORNITHOLOGICAL SECTION OF THE OLD
PHILADELPHIA MUSEUM

BY FRANK L. BURNS

The establishment and educational value of Peale’s Museum, the
first great public exhibition of objects of art and the natural sciences
in America, was due to the tremendous energy and enthusiasm of the
original proprietor and to its favorable reception by the public. The
elder Peale personally collected, prepared, and placed on exhibition
many indigenous species and, by purchase or exchange, a great number
of exotic species of birds; corresponded with Saint-Hilaire, Cuvier,
Lamarck, Weid, and Latham; exchanged with the great scientific mu-
seums of Europe and was visited by Humboldt and other distinguished
travelers; yet the scientific importance of this pioneer institution, to-'
day, is almost entirely due to a small though reliable clique of Phila-
delphia naturalists, mostly ornithologists, who had either designated
Peale specimens as their types, or more frequently, made this museum
the repository for their type specimens.

Peale was famous for his natural ability and extraordinary in-
dustry as a portrait painter, especially of Revolutionary patriots, and
for his great originality as a museum preparator; hut he has not been
conceded a permanent place among the early American naturalists,
although his contributions toward the awakening of the popular inter-
est in the subject, especially ornithology, has doubtless exceeded that
of all his American predecessors.

Charles Willson Peale was born at Chestertown, Maryland, April
15, 1741; apprenticed at the age of thirteen years to an Annapolis
harnessmaker ; began painting portraits with little instruction until
members of the Governors'1 Council sent him to London where he
studied under Benjamin West, 1767-69. In 1774 he removed to Phila-
delphia and set up his studio under the patronage of Cadwalader, Dick-
inson, and others, and in 1776 he was commissioned an officer in the
militia, which gave him opportunities to meet and paint his fellow
officers. In a recent exhibition of his paintings there was shown a
portrait of the great Commander-in-Chief, painted on a piece of blue
and white twilled bed-ticking, while encamped at Valley Forge.

Captain Peale was indeed an indefatigable worker; his museum
originated about 1784 in a frame annex to his residence on Third and
Lombard Street, and from a portrait gallery, gradually embraced.

24

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

in the language of the original American showman, “everything that
walks, creeps, swims, or flies, and all things else ’.

In 1792 he discovered the modern methods for the preservation of
birds and beasts, and as he devoted almost his entire time to this work,
his industry soon outgrew the accommodations and his collections
were removed, in a spectacular parade of all the boys of the neigh-
borhood, to the American Philosophical Hall, 1794.

The earliest museum publication I have seen bears the date of
1796, and although devoted to the quadrupeds, is entitled: “A Scien-
tific and Descriptive Catalogue of Peale’s Museum”. Later the official
title became the “Philadelphia Museum", though both Wilson and Ord
designated it by the original name. In an introduction to a course
of lectures on natural history delivered at the University of Pennsyl-
vania in 1799, Peale remarked: “So irresistibly bewitching is the thirst
for knowledge with science and nature that neither the want of funds,
nor the leisure from other occupations, could damp my ardour”. The
text of these lectures has not been preserved, nor scarcely a scrap of
technical matter, though the museum press printed its own guidebooks
and pamphlets.

The Legislature having vacated in 1802, Peale was granted at a
yearly rental of $400 the use of the State House, in which to exhibit his
collections. This was the year in which the Franco-German Rafinesque
landed and almost immediately described four supposedly new species
of Javanese birds “dans la cabinet de M. Peale".

By 1805 Peale ingenuously stated that “there are in this collec-
tion, perhaps all the birds belonging to the Middle, many of which
likewise belong to the Northern and Southern States, and a consider-
able number from South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, New Holland,
and the recently discovered islands of the South Seas. The number
exceeds 760 without the admission of any duplicates, contained in 140
cases”.

Though he stated that each species was correctly identified and
labeled with the Latin, English, and French names (with many non-
descripts) actually there were many misnomers and no adequate cata-
logue, for the talented proprietor lacked the patience of the naturalist
to study and make known this remarkable collection. He compared
his specimens with the figures or descriptions of Catesby, Edwards,
Pennant, or Linnaeus; and a refugee, Baron de Beauvois, helped him
to identify some species by means of Buffon’s works and to compose
the French edition of the guidebook. Peale may have painted some of
his subjects, and he did some engraving in mezzotint.

Charles W. and Titian R. Peale

25

Fig. 7. Charles Willson Peale, and the Long Room of the Philadelphia Museum

26

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

A manuscript, briefly descriptive of the collection, appeared in
“A walk with a friend through the Philadelphia Museum, by C. F.
Peale", preserved by the Pennsylvania Historical Society. It is un-
dated though obviously it cannot be placed later than 1805. This
ancient document is quite lengthy and evidently intended either as a
rough draft of a resume of his lecture in the mammal and bird rooms,
or a serious attempt to compose a popular handbook. The “friend"
is guided to Independence Hall and his attention called to the inscrip-
tion on the front of the building, viz., MUSEUM. GREAT SCHOOL
OF NATURE; and to the legend over the back door, viz., SCHOOL
OF WISDOM. Admission and pamphlet cost twenty-five cents, and
for the instruction of those who wished to know the Linnaean classifi-
cation of birds, on the side of the door entering the long room on the
second floor, a large frame contained the several orders and genera
with the characters of each.

Knowledge of the arrangement at a later date appears confined
to a series of numbers from 11 to 7789, applied by the curators to
the types of Wilson, Ord, Say, and Bonaparte, the representatives of
nearly 250 species and 300 specimens deposited or indicated by the
above persons or by the Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804-5) and the
Long Expedition (1819-20). It appears substantially the same as the
antiquated Linnaean system with some adaptations to meet the require-
ments of the exhibition. A definite space seems to have been reserved
for later accessions to all genera, though in some instances, especially
the Sylvia, an overflow had occurred. There were many inconsistencies,
for instance the Raven appears classed, probably for convenience, with
the birds of prey, and the Kingbird with the shrikes; but in the latter
Linnaeus had been followed; and better judgment than many con-
temporaries had shown, was evident in the inclusion of the Oven-bird.
Water-Thrush, Black and White, Canadian, and Hooded Warblers
with the Sylvia.

Peale’s museum probably furnished Wilson with his only speci-
mens of the Anhinga, Smew, Old-Squaw, Harlequin, and Labrador
Ducks, Eider, Ruddy Duck, Flamingo, Scarlet Ibis, Whooping Crane,
Purple Gallinule, European Oyster-catcher, Swallow-tailed Kite, be-
sides the new species of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. It is certain
that Wilson’s accomplishments during his brief career as an orni-
thologist would have been greatly curtailed without the assistance of
this great collection.

A perusal of the aforementioned Peale manuscript, which is some-
times briefly descriptive, often obtuse, but occasionally gives the im-

Charles W. and Titian R. Peale

27

pression of superior discrimination, strengthens our belief that had he
cared to publish the colored figures or a descriptive catalogue with
original designations for his novelties, many of the new species now
accredited to Vieillot, Wilson, and others, would have borne the name
of Peale, even though it must be confessed that he had revealed no
aptitude for technical names and descriptions.

The following extracts from his rough notes on some few species
(headed by the names in current use and supplemented in some in-
stances by confirmatory or explanatory notes) have peculiar interest
as heretofore unpublished records of a very early American collector.

Sterna antillarum (Les.). A rare bird, it was blown from the seacoast across
the Jerseys in a heavy storm, and dropped down in the street; we named it the
Minute Tern.

Anhinga anhinga (Linn.). This was a straggler, shot at Elkridge Landing,
high up the Patapsco River, (Maryland) far distant from where any were seen
before. It differs in plumage from the other that was brought from Georgia.
(Of this extraordinary species we can give little more than accurate descriptions
and tolerably good portraits, which are taken from two fine specimens, admirably
set up and preserved in the Museum of Mr. Peale, Nos. 3188 and 3189-Wilson.
The Elkridge specimen has the record for being the farthest north on the Atlantic
slope. Peale could scarcely he mistaken as to the exact locality since it was at
no great distance from his native town. — F. L. B.).

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos (Gm.). This is one which was shot in the mouth
of Chester Creek, Maryland. It is ascertained that they are found in the Chese-
peake Bay; one, some years past, was taken as high as the Susquehannah. They
seldom winter in our rivers although they are known every summer to he along
the seacoast, especially of Egg Harbor. One was wounded up the Hudson as
far as Albany some years ago.

Nyroca valisineria (Wils.). The Canvas-back duck is most esteemed for the
table; a comparative view of the beak with that of the Red-head Duck (A. rufa )
will confirm knowledge not easily mistaken, although the plumages of both species
are very similar.

Carnptorhynchus labradorius (Gm.). The Pied Duck deserves our notice as
a rare duck, or not much known even to naturalists. They are sometimes brought
to our market from Egg Harbor.

Oidemia americana (Sw.). The Scoter came from Sweden, differ from the
American Scoter.

Erismatura famaicensis rubida. The Ferrugenous Duck (A. ferrugnea ) ap-
pears by authors to be a rare bird in Europe. This was shot on the Delaware,
it is the only one I have seen. The purity of the blue of its bill while living,
greatly surpassed its present appearance. (This very rare duck was shot some
years on the River Delaware, and appears to be an entire new species. The
specimen here figured, with the female that accompanied it, and which was killed
in the same river, are the only individuals of the kind I ever met with. They
are both preserved in the superb museum of my much respected friend, Mr.
Peale, of this City. — Wilson).

Phoenicoplerus ruber (Linn.). Flamingo. (P. ruber ) inhabit Louisiana, the
Bahama Islands, and the West Indies. It has a rather timerous than a lofty
spirit. Both of these were living in our city for some time. Our climate is too
severe to domesticate them.

Guara rubru (Linn.). Scarlet Ibis. ( T . ruber) found in Georgia and South
Carolina in summer. (One of them lived for some time in the museum of this
city. — Wilson) .

28

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

Grus americana (Linn.). Hooping Crane. (G. americana) . (No. 3704. Dr.
Mease has stated that this specimen came from the Capes of the Delaware).

Gallinago delicata (Ord). There is a snipe that is called the English Snipe.
It is said to be found in every quarter of the globe under some trifling variety of
plumage and size. The variety which we have here belonging to America, is
considerable.

Numenius americanus (Bech.). There is a specific difference between the
European ( arquata ) and the American Curlew, the under bill very much shorter
on the latter in proportion to the birds; plumage of each species very much alike
but the American Curlew is considerably larger than the European.

Charadrius semipalmatus (Bp.) or C. meloda (Ord). The Ring Plover (C.
hiaticula) of Europe is very like a bird of which we have great numbers about
Cape Henlopen.

Haematopus palliatus palliatus (Temm.). Singular is the genus Haematopus
or Oystercatcher. They inhabit Europe and America. The darkest pair is from
England, and the other from Cape May, called Sea-Pie, Pied Oystercatcher H.
0 stride gus.

Tympanuchus cupido cupido (Linn.). Pinnated Grouse. They are numerous
on the bushy plains of Long Island.

Meleagris gallopavo silvestris (Vieil.). So common a bird that it might he
passed by without notice.

Ectopistes migratorius (Linn.). Migratory or Passenger Pigeon (C. migra-
toria) . Visits Pennsylvania and all the middle states in prodigious flights — when
our markets are supplied with vast quantities which are taken in nets.

Coragyps atratus atratus. The Carrion Crow. It is said not to go more
than fifty or sixty miles from the seacoast of Carolina and Georgia. (The Vultur
atratus of Bartram).

Elanoides forficatus (Linn.). Swallow-tailed Falcon. (A specimen now in
the museum of Philadelphia, was shot within a few miles of that city. — Wilson).

Astur atricapillus atricapillus (Wils.). Black-cap Hawk. (Ash-colored or
Black-capped Hawk. This bird was shot within a few miles of Philadelphia, and
is now preserved, in good order, in Mr. Peales’ museum. — Wilson).

Tylo alba pratincola. A great similarity of the common owl ( Flammea )
of Europe and Asia and one which is sometimes found in the vicinity of Phila-
delphia. The only difference between them, is the bars of the quill feathers; in
all other parts of their plumage they are perfectly alike.

Asio wilsonianus (Less.). A variety of the Long Eared Owl.

Conuropsis carolinensis (Linn.). This is that small parrot with the Auora-
colored head, named the Carolina Parrot. It sometimes breeds in that country,
but most of them go farther south. They migrate to the western counties of
Pennsylvania. (A number of these birds, in all their grades of progressive
change from green to yellow, have been deposited in Mr. Peale’s museum. —
Wilson ) .

Coccyzus erythrophthalmus (Wils.). The Black Bill Cuckow is not described;
beside the bill having none of the white on the under mandible, it is also without
the pale rufous quill feathers of the Carolina (C. americanus) ; not very differ-
ent from the Carolina but it is obvious that they are two separate species; pairs.
(Peale exchanged on February 4, 1806, with other specimen, a Black-hilled
Cuckoo, to Savage of the New York Museum).

Campephilus principalis (Linn.). Ivory-billed Woodpecker. It is not found
near Philadelphia, though it is said to inhabit from the Jerseys to Brazil.

Epidonax virescens (Vieil.). There is another species considerably like fusca,
but a smaller bird, whose manners also resemble it. But this species are only
found in the thickest woods, they visit us about one month later than the others,
this bird has not been described. Mr. Wilson, a very accurate observer, fond of
natural history, gave me this account. (Peale’s description is inadequate and the
reference may apply almost equally as well to Myiochanes virens, which is Bart-
ram’s Muscicapa subviridus the little olive col’d flycatcher).

Charles W. and Titian R. Peale

29

Corvus corax principalis (Ridg.). Few of our citizens know that we possess
the Raven [Corvus corax ) ; it is rarely found near Philadelphia hut abounds in
the western parts of Pennsylvania.

Icterus spurius (Linn.). Before we leave this genus, it is deserving of notice
that authors have been under the mistake of making the black-throat, the female
of the Bastard Baltimore ( Oriolus spurius). Here we see the proper mate to each
of them. (Mr. Charles W. Peale, proprietor of the museum, in Philadelphia, who,
as a practical naturalist, stands deservedly first in the first rank of American
connoisseurs, and who has done more for the promotion of that sublime science
than all our speculative theorists together, has expressed to me his perfect con-
viction of the changes in which these birds pass through; having himself examined
them in spring and toward the latter part of summer, and having at the present
time in his possession thirty or forty individuals of this species in every gradation
of change. — Wilson).

Cassaclix mexicanus major (Vieil.). Boat-tailed Grackle ( Gracula barita) .
It is so-called because of the folding up of the tail feathers.

Loxia curvirostra pusilla Gloger. The American species we know has charm-
ing though not loud notes; they are rare on our seacoast but very numerous in
the back parts of Pennsylvania. (The Loxia rostra forjicato of Bartram).

Ammodramus savannarum australis Maynard. The Yellow-winged Sparrow is
a nondescript; green shouldered sparrow; very few of our sparrows have been
described by naturalists. (Evidently Peale considered the above named two dis-
tinct species. Wilson adopted the first for his common name for Fringilla
passerina)' .

Spizella arborea arborea (Wils.). The Russet-capped Sparrow is most com-
mon. (The Passer domesticus of Bartram and the Fringilla domesticus Chipping
Sparrow of Barton).

Melospiza melodia melodia (Wils.). Spotted-breasted Sparrow, nest and eggs,
the male a fine singer. (The Fringilla melodia of Barton).

Piranga erythromelas (Vieil.). Red Tanager ( T. rubru) is found generally
throughout the United States.

P. rubra rubra (Linn.). T. aestiva, very few come so far north as Pennsyl-
vania, breed in Maryland and winter near the Mississippi.

Bombycilla cedorum (Vieil.). Waxen Chatterer A. garrulis distinct from the
American Cedarbird. (Those of onr fellow citizens who have still doubts, and
wish to examine for themselves, may see beautiful specimens of both birds in the
superb collection of Mr. Charles W. Peale ol Philadelphia, whose magnificent
museum is indeed a national blessing, and will be a lasting honor to his memory.
Wilson ) .

Lanius borealis (Vieil.). The largest of this genus of birds, is our Cinerous
Shrike ( Lanius exubiter) .

Vireo flavifrons (Vieil.). Many of this genus of birds have a great part
of their plumage of an olive colour hut same have red eyes, therefore the English
term is preferable. The White-eyed Flycatcher, this is, we consider a proper
name for the same reason and it distinguishes it from another species of the
same size, much like it except that it has a yellow throat.

Dendroica magnolia (Wils.). Black and Yellow Warbler, male and female;
a nondescript. (Mr. Peale has the merit of having been the first to discover this
elegant species, which he informs me, he found several years ago not many miles
from Philadelphia. — Wilson). Peale identified the “Yellow Rump ( M . maculosa)
male and female” as the Myrtle Warbler.

D. cerulea (Wils.). Blue and White Warbler, also a nondescript, a beautiful
bird, rare. (Except my friend Mr. Peale, I know of no other naturalist who seems
to have hitherto known of its existence. — Wilson. The merit of having discovered
this bird is entirely due to the Peale family, whose exertions have contributed so
largely to extend the limits of natural history. The male, which he has accu-
rately described and figured, was made known to Wilson by the late venerable
Charles Willson Peale, who alone, and unassisted, accomplished an enterprise, in

30

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

the formation of the Philadelphia museum, that could hardly have been exceeded
under the fostering hand of the most powerful government. To the no less
zealous researches of Mr. Titian Peale, the discovery of the female is recently
owing, who, moreover, evinced his sagacity by determining its affinities, and
pointed out its true place in the system. — Bonaparte).

Seiurus motacilla (Vieil.). Louisiana Warbler Ludovicina.

Wilsonia pusilla pusilla (Wils.). No. 1703, with a black cap, a nondescript,
very small.

Troglodytes aedon aedon (Vieil.). (Having seen no accurate description of
this bird in any European publication, f have confined my references to Mr.
Bartram and Mr. Peale. — Wilson. The Motacilla domestica House Wren of
Bartram ) .

Telmatodytes palustris palustris (Wils.). Marsh Wren and its curious nest.
(The Passer palustris of Bartram).

Hylocichla sp.? Little Thrush (T. Minor). They are generally found in
the retired places of our woods and very often on the ground; common through-
out the Llnited States; here are some varieties of the same kind of Thrush.
(Since Turdus minor was based in part upon both the Olive-backed and Wilson’s
Thrushes oi Pennant and of Edwards, Peale’s varieties doubtless included the
Wood, Hermit, and possibly the Gray-cheeked Thrushes. Wilson, who clarified
the sparrow muddle, was less successful with the thrushes).

Certhia familiaris americanus. Bp. The plain brown striped bird belongs to
Europe, Asia, and America. The American species have the throat and breast
whiter than those of Europe; we seldom see birds of the two Continents so much
alike. (The Certhia ruja little brown variegated creeper of Bartram).

The Peales kept a great daybook or “Memoranda of the Phila-
delphia Museum”, in which were recorded the enormous accessions of
specimens through donation and exchange from 1803 to 1837. Alex-
ander Wilson’s first presentation occurred July 14, 1804, and con-
sisted of sixteen birds’ nests and eggs, and almost his last, March 20,
1813, was a set of Bald Eagle eggs taken at the Great Egg Harbor
bay, now in the Brewer collection. Museum of Comparative Zoology.
The itemization of the miscellaneous collection presented by Meri-
wether Lewis by order of President Jefferson covered several pages,
and the Long collection was added March 23, 1821. It was the ambi-
tion of Peale to make his collections the nucleus of a National Mu-
seum, and with this end in view, he formed a national board of visi-
tors; but government assistance was refused, and be retired from active
management in 1808, his son Reubens became curator, and Rembrandt,
probably a better painter than bis father, had his studio in the east
room on the first floor. There seemed at that time nothing incon-
gruous in the exhibition of Revolutionary portraits and Nature’s own
creations in the “Cradle of Liberty”, and Peale, a participant in the
battles of Trenton, Princeton, Germantown, and Monmouth, would
have been the last to desecrate it.

Catalogue No. 1, which by the way was not the only one so num-
bered and undated, summarized the collections as follows: portraits

Charles W. and Titian R. Peale

31

130 (eventually increased to 269) ; wax figures of Indians, etc., 80;
quadrupeds 190; birds 1240 (not including duplicates) ; tortoises 40;
lizards 112; snakes 148; fishes 121; insects and miscellaneous, exceed-
ing 6000; fossils and minerals 1920. It is highly improbable that
much of importance was added to the ornithological department after
the specimens collected by Titian R. Peale on the Long Expedition
and his second trip to Florida; if so, it does not appear in the records
of the museum.

Under the new management, which included Raphael, Rembrandt,
Reubens, Linnaeus, Franklin, and Titian Peale, it was incorporated
in 1821 and capitalized at $100,000. Previous to the municipal pur-
chase of the Independence Hall, a project was actually under way to
acquire the entire south side of the square, and Latrobe was employed
to design a museum to cover the site.

Soon after the death of the elder Peale, February 22, 1827, the
museum was moved to the Arcade on Chestnut Street above Sixth
Street, and the capitalization increased to $400,000; later a museum
was built on Sansom, from Ninth almost to Eighth Street, in 1838.
It was a two-storied building 70 by 238 feet, with lofty ceilings, con-
trolled by the Peale family and Pierce Butler. The museum no longer
confined its sphere to the natural sciences and fine arts, for the me-
chanical genius of Franklin Peale had introduced the working models
of American inventions; and there were numerous other features of
the dime museum caliber.

The colorwork on the plates of the Harrison Hall edition of the
“American Ornithology”, published 1828-29, by some considered the
best colored plates of all. was done by the Lawson sisters from speci-
mens in the Philadelphia museum, presumably the types of the original
edition.

The elder Peale had married three times and his children de-
veloped mostly as artists, only one of whom, his youngest son, elected
to follow the profession of a naturalist. Titian Ramsey Peale (named
after an elder half-brother, who showed great promise as a naturalist
and who died in his eighteenth year) was born in the Hall of the
American Philosophical Society in 1800. As a youth of seventeen
years he accompanied Ord, Say, and Maclure on a brief, interrupted
trip to Florida; he was assistant to Say on the Long Expedition to the
West, 1819-20; he was employed by Bonaparte to collect in Florida
and to draw many of the birds for the continuation of the “American
Ornithology”, 1824; and later, on the authority of a recent writer, he

32

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

is said to have accompanied the Burrough’s Party to South America,
1831, of which little is known; he was also director and curator of
the museum, and illustrator of Doughty’s "Cabinet of Natural History
and American Rural Sports”, 1830-32.

It seems that Peale and Ord had planned a private collecting trip
to the Missouri about 1830; hut at that time the latter was in Paris
studying the French language, and the trip was never accomplished.
Nevertheless, it was not all work and no play. Titian returned from
the Rocky Mountains an enthusiastic archer; and after reading up on
the subject especially as conducted by the Royal Society of England,
in 1836 with the help of his brother Franklin, Thomas Sully the
artist, Dr. Robert E. Griffith, and other prominent business and pro-
fessional men, organized the “United Bowmen”, destined to endure for
more than thirty years.

The regulation field costume, with its gold-laced Lincoln green
coat, white pantaloons, black patent leather girdle and gold buckle,
tassel and greasebox, and green covered straw hat turned up on the
left side with three black ostrich plumes, must have put to shame the
most gaudy parrot in his father’s collection. The field meets were
conducted every Saturday from May to October at Bush Hill, on the
south side of Fairmount Avenue near Twentieth Street (where Alex-
ander Wilson had found the Pine Siskin, Spinas pinus , about a quarter
of a century earlier), and the target distances were not less than 60
and not more than 1 25 yards — a severe test of strength and marks-
manship. The punch-bowl was not the useless piece of bric-a-brac
it is today, although the “hailstorm” was partaken with discretion.

Titian Peale’s great opportunity came with his appointment as
mammalogist and ornithologist of the Wilkes’ Lhiited States Exploring
Expedition, 1838-42. mainly to lands touching the Pacific Ocean; his
skill and experience as an animal painter, field collector, and prepara-
tor had secured the recommendation of his friends of the American
Philosophical Society, though he had heretofore scarcely written a
line for publication.

C. W. Peale had written on the very first page of his journal the
following aphorism (or sophism?): “I love the study of nature be-
cause it teacheth benevolence”.

Apparently, upon the return of Titian R. Peale after nearly four
years of travel and successful endeavor, similar invidious influences
and controversies that overwhelmed John Townsend, were reenacted in
the instance of another gentle soul, for others were placed in charge of

Charles W. and Titian R. Peale

33

Fig. 8. Titian Ramsey Peale

34

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

his materials and he was hampered in many ways. Ord had reassured
him: “I deeply deplore the plunder of your hard-earned treasures hut
it is precisely what I expected. Be of good cheer my dear old friend
and fellow traveller. God almighty will not abandon you. Preserve
your integrity and honorable bearing, and you shall yet succeed'.
Peale persevered, for under the date of May 19, 1845, he wrote his
friend: “We are ‘getting along* here after a fashion, much in need of
books and countenance; the big gun of the Exploring exped. ‘has gone
off, and the echo is rumbling in the distance. I doubt much whether
any ammunition will be forthcoming from small arms.”

His official report, rather incongruously entitled “Mammalia and
Ornithology”, published in 1848, included the descriptions of numer-
ous species of birds supposedly new to science, for he had no means
of ascertaining that many had been described, owing to the lack of the
essential works of reference. His inexperience in work of this nature
counted heavily against him, for his contribution was deemed un-
worthy of the series in scientific value and was suppressed by Wilkes,
who had retained command until the reports were completed. In 1852
the revised edition “Mammalogy and Ornithology”, by John Cassin, ap-
peared with Peale’s folio volume of colored plates, denied the first
edition. It is needless to state that Cassin through the liberality of a
wealthy patron had the material and necessary works of reference
and that the technical descriptions and synonmy were only matters
of routine to that accomplished systematise

Quite naturally Peale was mortified when his work was rejected
and destroyed, though his friend George Ord advised him that since
he had incurred the hostility of his superior, nothing could be done
for his reputation unless he should publish at his own expense under
copyright and submit judgment to the future. Nothing further was
attempted and the Peale edition is one of the rarest books on orni-
thology.

Peale was frequently employed by Ord, presumably in the illus-
tration of his contemplated work on the quadrupeds, a work that would
have been a credit to all concerned had it been published, but it was
discontinued upon a reverse in fortune of the author, and the drawings,
descriptions, and some plates engraved by Lawson, probably destroyed
after a few impressions of the plates were made. Peale also, at an
earlier date began an illustrated work on the moths and butterflies
engraved on stone, which he never finished.

Charles W. and Titian R. Peale

35

In 1845 Orel was an applicant for the position of Secretary for
the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, and he wrote
Peale who was still in Washington, “Should the efforts of my friends
be successful, you may take it for granted that the situation of Curator
will be filled by T. R. P.” Ord, through Colonel Biddle, with char-
acteristic modesty, urged the appointment of Peale and thought his
chances very good, though not so sanguine of his own, and when Prof.
Henry was named, he expressed his entire approval. In 1848 Peale
was made Assistant Examiner of Patents, later Principal Examiner in
the Division of Fine Arts and Photography, in which congenial em-
ployment he continued until his resignation in 1873. He died in
Philadelphia in 1885. His name is perpetuated in North American
ornithology by Falco peregrinus pealei , a rather pathetic reminder of
the Peales, father and son, whose integrity and perseverance had con-
tributed so much to the material advancement of American ornithology.

The Museum Company failed as a commercial enterprise long
after it had ceased to he the resort of the savants of natural science.
Over-capitalization and the failure of the United States Bank closed
its doors at the outbreak of the Mexican War. The natural history
collections were sold to Kimball and Barnum in 1850, and a small
part of the ornithological relics eventually found rest in the Museum
of Comparative Zoology at Cambridge, Massachusetts — some fifty-three
more or less doubtful types of Wilson, Ord, and Bonaparte, the sole
survivors of the Ornithological Section, except two type specimens in
the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, and one of Wilson’s
types in the collection at Vassar College.

The national prominence of the old Philadelphia Museum in orni-
thology may he said to have extended from Rafinesque’s first entry,
throughout the activity of Wilson, and terminated with the visit of
Bonaparte, a period almost coincident with its occupancy of Inde-
pendence Hall. It then passed to the Academy for a time, hut there
was no immediate successor to Cassin, who tolerated neither rival nor
neophyte; and the Smithsonian Institution came into its own.

Berwyn, Pa.

THE WILSON BULLETIN

Published at Sioux City, Iowa, by the Wilson Ornithological Club.

The present editorial organization is as follows: T. C. Stephens, Editor-in-

Chief, Sioux City, Iowa; Myron H. Swenk, University of Nebraska, Lincoln,
Nebraska; Albert F. Gather, Nashville, Tennessee; Alfred M. Bailey, Chicago
Academy of Sciences, Chicago, Illinois; R. D. Hissong, Sioux City, Iowa.

The subscription price in the United States is $1.50 a year, and 50 cents a
number; in all other countries of the International Postal Union the price is
$2.00 a year, and 60 cents a number. Subscriptions and orders for single copies
should be addressed to the Secretary, Dr. Jesse M. Shaver, Peabody College,
Nashville, Tennessee, U. S. A.

EDITORIAL

The New Orleans Meeting was a noteworthy one in many ways. Perhaps
the setting and environment had much to do with its success. The total regis-
tration in the A. A. A. S. headquarters was 1,447, while at Cleveland last year
the figure exceeded 2,700. While our own attendance at New Orleans fell below
that of Cleveland, yet it made a much better relative showing than did the main
registration, and compares favorably with the average of the preceding five years.
The following figures present a statistical comparison of the Club’s affairs during
the past five years.

Local attendance

Nashvil 1
1927

.. 32

e Ann Arbor

1928

31

Des Moines
1929
106

Cleveland

1930

41

New Orleans
1931

li

Out ol town attendance

. 43

75

96

122

81

Total attendance

.. 75

106

202

163

92

Dinner attendance

. 46

50

77

98

35

Titles on program

.. 34

24

36

33

27

Honorary members

4

4

9

7

7

Life members

5

7

7

Sustaining members

. 68

64

66

58

57

Active members

. 244

248

245

227

214

Associate members

. 347

383

397

479

461

Total membership

. 663

702

717

775

744

Total receipts

.$1638

$1981

$2167

$2451

$2686

Pages in Bulletin

. 256

274

272

312

334

As a basis for plann

ing our

future meetings

the follow

ing meetin

g schedule

of the A. A. A. S. will be of interest:

1932. Atlantic City, N. J.

1933. Boston, Mass.

1934. Pittsburgh, Pa.

1935. Havana, Cuba.

1936. Washington, D. C.

1937. Indianapolis, Ind.

1938. Atlanta or Houston.

I he American Association plans to hold a summer meeting in Chicago in
1933 (June 19-30) during the World’s Fair. Now that these dates have been
fixed the W. O. C. may consider whether it wishes to join in this summer meeting
at the World’s Fair; if so, will a winter meeting in the same year be advisable?
It is interesting to note that the American Association is planning to use $75,000
to bring to this meeting seventy-five scientists as guests from foreign countries.

Editorial

37

The New Orleans meeting was productive of several changes in our official
list. The officers and councillors were at this meeting elected under the new
constitution which was adopted a year ago at Cleveland. Dr. Jesse M. Shaver,
who has been Secretary for three years, was made President. His active and
efficient work in the Secretary's office has placed the organization under deep
obligation to him.

Professor E. L. Moseley, who was made First Vice President, has been, since
1914, the professor of Biology at Ohio State College, Bowling Green, Ohio. Be-
sides being a member of various scientific societies. Prof. Moseley has written
several books and numerous papers in various fields of biological science. He
also has the honor of having named after him a fish, a bird, and a species of
golden-rod. Prof. Moseley is also credited with having discovered the cause of a
disease known as “the Trembles”, or the milk sickness. He was a member of the
Steere Scientific Expedition to the Philippine Islands in 1888.

Dr. Josselyn Van Tyne, who was elected Second Vice President, is now Cura-
tor of Birds in the Museum of Zoology of the University of Michigan. He is a
graduate of Harvard University, received his Ph. D. from the University of Michi-
gan in 1928, and remained there. He has worked out some excellent life history
studies of birds at Barro Colorado Laboratory in Panama; and was ornithologist
with the Kelley-Roosevelt Expedition to Indo-China in 1929, and also with the
University of Michigan Expedition to British Honduras and Guatamala in 1931.

Our new Secretary, Mr. Lawrence E. Hicks, is a young man who was gradu-
ated from the Frederickstown High School in 1923. In 1928 he received the
B. S. from Otterbein College, and in 1929 he received the M. S. from Ohio State
University. He is now pursuing work for the Ph. D. while serving as instructor
in the Department of Botany in the same university. He is a member of the Ohio
Academy of Science, A. A. A. S., American Botanical Society, American Ecologi-
cal Society, Wilson Ornithological Club, American Ornithologists’ Union, Sigma Xi,
and Gamma Alpha. His interest seems to be about equally divided between Bot-
any and Ornithology, and he has done a splendid lot of research in both fields.
He has accepted t lie heavy duties of his present office with enthusiasm, and we
are certain that he will receive the cordial support of our members.

The W. O. C. Library is in need of a book-plate. Members who are inter-
ested in such matters are invited to submit designs for a suitable book-plate for
the books of the Club’s Library. From those submitted a choice will be made and
announced at a future time. No decision has been made, but it is probable that
the book-plate should have a space for the accession number; and possibly also
a space for the donor’s name.

It Is Interesting to note that the electrical devices which Mr. Baldwin has
been using to determine the temperatures and the comings and goings ol birds
in the nest are now being placed in cribs to register the behavior of human babies.

38

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

GENERAL NOTES

Conducted by M. H. Swenk

A Snow Bunting Banded in Michigan Shot in Greenland. — A bird band-
ing return came to me today (December 14, 1931) which gives me the following
information: “You will be interested to know that information has been received
to the effect that a Snow Bunting (which I) banded on February 17, 1931, was
shot by R. Hairing at Igdlorpait, Julianehaab District, Greenland, on April 30,
1931.” — Oscar M. Byrens, McMillan, Mich.

The Barn Owl Nesting in Southeastern South Dakota. — A pair of Barn
Owls ( Tyto alba pratincola ) nested by the James River near Yankton in the sum-
mer of 1931. I was out of town when the nest was found, about the middle of
August. It was made a news item, containing a description of the young birds,
and stating that no one knew whether they were eagles, hawks, or owls. Of
course it was not difficult to decide between these. On September 17, the young
birds were still in the nest. I have seen very few Barn Owls here, but am par-
ticularly surprised at their nesting so late in the season. — A. P. Larrabee, Yankton
College, Yankton, S. D.

Red Crossbills at Viroqua, Wisconsin. — On August 6, 1931, I had the
pleasure of having a small flock of Red Crossbills ( Loxia curvirostra pusilla)
come to the bird bath. Glancing lrom the window, two birds caught my atten-
tion as being different from the usual birds that frequent our small place. Out
doors with my binoculars 1 was able to steal up to within about twenty feet.
There were six, all in the bath at one time, fluttering and throwing the water
about. They were quite unafraid and undisturbed by anything around them. It
was easy to distinguish the crossed bills in the short time that they remained.- —
Margarette E. Morse, Viroqua, W is.

Florida Gallinule Eats Goldfish. — On April 23, 1931, a live Florida Gal-
linule ( G allin ul a chloropus cachinnans) was brought to the Buffalo (New York)
Museum of Sciences. It was given the run of the corridor in the preparator’s
department, and often jumped into an open aquarium, where it fed upon water
plants. Four days after its capture it was observed to eat a dead goldfish which
it flailed against the concrete floor before eating it. The bird became very tame
and by April 29 it was greedily accepting bits of raw beef tossed to it from the
distance of one foot. On the following day the bird took food from its owner’s
bands. — Louis B. Kalter, Dayton, Ohio.

A Spotted Sandpiper Incubates Five Eggs. — On June 28, 1931, while
serving as a ranger naturalist in the Educational Division of the Department of
Interior, at Old Faithful in Yellowstone Park, Wyoming, I found, along the bank
of the Firehole River, a Spotted Sandpiper ( Actitis macularia ) on its nest. The
nest was in an ideal location on the south side of the bank and sheltered by an
overhanging tuft of sod.

Upon chasing the adult bird from the nest 1 found five spotted dark brown
eggs. Five eggs are rather an exception to the rule. Most literature citations
and records from observations show that the Spotted Sandpiper lays and incu-
bates four eggs.

1 visited the nest on each of the following three days, and it was empty on
the third day, when the mother and young were nowhere to be found. — George
A. Smith, Brown University, Providence, R. I.

General Notes

39

A Red-bellied Woodpecker Robs a Sapsucker. — In December, 1927, I
noted a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker ( Sphyrapicus varius varius) on one of the sugar
maple trees in our yard. He was busily engaged in drilling rows of holes around
the larger limbs of the tree. I could see he had already constructed a large num-
ber of these miniature wells, which he toured from time to time. Each day he
would come to the tree around 11:00 a. m. and would spend there from an hour
and a half to two hours or more. One day as I was watching him make his
rounds, he had a caller — a Red-bellied Woodpecker ( Cent ur as carolinus) . Im-
mediately upon arrival the latter began to eat at the Sapsucker’s holes. Indeed,
he was hard to fill, and would fly at the Sapsucker, causing him to dodge around
a limb in order to keep out of the way. Resentment seemed to he on the wrong
side. The Sapsucker bore the intrusion patiently and without vociferation. Sev-
eral times thereafter I saw the robber still working at his holdup game. — N. M.
McGuire, Nelson, Mo.

Bank Swallows Killed by Automobiles. — On July 23, 1931, with Mr. and
Mrs. J. H. Hollister, we noted ten or twelve dead Bank Swallows on a graveled
road about a small lake about twenty-five miles southeast of Fargo. While driving
near the same place on July 26 we found a group of fifty to one hundred birds on
the telephone wires and about as many on the roadway. It was necessary to slow
down to avoid striking them. Mr. and Mrs. W. E. Brentzel report that near
Pelican Rapids, Minnesota, they saw on the same day large numbers of birds on
dead trees, telephone wires, and on the road. In three places the roadway was
black with dead birds, estimated at a total of 1,000. Both of these instances
were on graveled roads on very warm days. The Brentzels state that large num-
bers of birds have been seen at this particular place in other years, but not the
dead birds. A low meadow adjoins the road on one side and a farm house is
located on the other, but there is no bank nearby. — O. A. Stevens, Fargo, N. D.

Some Brief Bird Notes from Indiana. — The Aralia spinosa berries are
relished by Robins, Red-eyed Vireos, and other birds in the fall. The common
Pokeberry is a source of great delight for Robins in the late fall. 1 have seen
six Robins at one time feasting in one bush. Frozen apples that have been left
on the tree are liked by many winter birds. Snow Buntings, which are very
rare in this part of the country (1 have known them to visit this place only once),
feed upon weed seeds, even when the snow is very deep, and will jump upon a
weed, breaking it down, and will then eagerly devour the seeds. Birds change
their diet many times, according to the supply.

Robins almost all departed during August in 1930 and 1931, leaving but a
few stragglers with us. I have travelled in eight other states during the time the
Robins were the most plentiful, and find that in no place are there such a great
number of these birds as in our own vicinity. I wonder why this is true? In
many places for some reason we found few if any Robins. I think the Bluebirds
are increasing in number in many places. Red-headed Woodpeckers are killed
more than any other species of birds by autos, I think. 1 believe it is because
they are clumsy and cannot get out of the way. The Yellow-breasted Chat is to
be found in this part of the country often now, but formerly it was rare. It nests
near this place, and I have made a thorough study of its habits, home and song,
and find it a most interesting bird. It nests in wild cut-over areas that man seldom
visits. — Mrs. Horace P. Cook, Anderson, Ind.

40

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

Worthington’s Marsh Wren in the Vicinity of Savannah, Georgia. —

Wheeler’s paper on Marian’s Marsh Wren in the December, 1931, issue of the
Wilson Bulletin makes it seem desirable to mention some facts about the local
race of the Long-hilled Marsh Wren breeding in this section.

Worthington’s Marsh Wren ( T elmatodytes palustris griseus) is one of the
common birds near the Georgia-South Carolina line, on the coast and in its par-
ticular habitat. The type locality of the subspecies is given in the A. O. U.
Check-List as Sapela Island (Georgia) some forty or more miles to the southward.
To list the localities frequented by this species during the summer would take up
too much space here, but along the Savannah River 1 have found it from the salt
marshes on the coast to about two miles west of Savannah — a distance of about
seventeen miles inland from the outer islands. This includes several miles of
territory designated by Wayne (Birds of South Carolina) as the River Rice Fields.
Here we find such fresh-water plants as the Pickerelweed (Pontederia) , Arrow-
head ( Sagittaria ) and various others. The birds nest here in tall reeds or marsh
grass along the river hanks, and the little drains and canals of the abandoned
rice fields. The river water is either fresh or brackish, according as to the river
is high or low.

Farther toward the coast they live and nest in high grass at the edges of
the many waterways, as well as in the salt and brackish ponds of the coastal
islands. I have never found one of their nests in a tree, and never in any place
not directly over muddy shores or over water. The usual globular nest is made,
and the materials vary according to the locality and convenience. Near the city
docks fragments of cotton that have drifted across the river are woven into the
nest with other suitable material.

The nesting time varies greatly, and if a second brood is raised, the birds
must move well away from the first nesting site. 1 have found eggs in late April,
and from then until July 24, though in different years. One colony located
conveniently (for observation) in 1925 had many eggs through June and then an
occasional set until late July. About three nests in eight have five eggs; that is
one occupied nest, for many of the so-called “bachelor” nests are always to be
found. I have not found a set that 1 believed to be complete with less than four
eggs. The eggs are often covered with a soft cushion, and after incubation is
started this cushion is usually drawn into the opening when the bird is absent.

It is not usual to find the eggs muddy, as with the clapper rails, the galli-
nules, and the seaside sparrows nesting in the same muddy marsh, which seems to
indicate that the wrens do not descend to the mud, but travel along the grass
stems and drifted sedge in search of food and nesting material. — Ivan R. Tom-
kins, Savannah, Ga.

A Starling Roost in the Chicago Area. — The Starling ( Sturnus vulgaris )
is soon to he one of the common birds of the Middle West, if their rapid spread
in the Chicago area is any indication. 'Pile first large roost in the region, so far
as I know, is one at Homewood, Illinois. Mr. C. .]. Albrecht reported to me that
flock after (lock of Starlings passed his house each evening, enroute to their rest-
ing places. On August 17, I saw a few of the birds, but was too late to witness
the big flight, so we walked a couple of hundred yards from Mr. Albrecht’s home,
to that of Mr. Charles Harmke. The chatter of congregated birds was evident
when we were 100 yards away, and we found great numbers of Starlings, Robins,

General Notes

41

Crackles, English Sparrows, and a few Purple Martins swarming into the box-
elders, cotonwoods, willows, and maples. Whenever we clapped our hands the
birds would rise in flocks of twenty to one hundred. To he conservative, we
estimated that there were 1,000 Starlings, but there were probably a great many
more. Mr. Harmke said that the birds had been using the trees lor their roosts
for three years, and were such a nuisance with their tilth that he believed he
would destroy the trees. — Alfked M. Bailey, Chicago, III.

A Large Fall Migration of the White Pelican. — While riding around the
south side of Crystal Lake, Dakota County, Nebraska, about 3:00 P. m. on
October 4, 1931, my attention was called to a large flock of birds. At first we
were undecided as to what they were. They were circling slowly, and as they
came closer we decided that they were pelicans, and the size of the (lock seemed
to indicate the largest one of migrating pelicans that we had ever noticed.

There were four in the party and we tried counting them to form an estimate.
They were widely scattered and we could count the small detached bunches. The
count ranged from 700 to 1,200, and we compromised at 900. This flock was
followed by several others. The one immediately following contained about half
as many and four others followed in the next hour and a half, numbering from
about 150 to 400. They were all flying slowly to the southeast, down the Missouri
River Valley.

After watching these birds for some time we drove to the ranch house of
Elmer Ebel, who has lived on this edge of the lake for thirty-three years, and is a
close observer of waterfowl, being a conservationist as well as a hunter. He
stated that this migration is not uncommon, in lact the pelicans are the first of
the migrating birds to go south, and he has seen them in much greater numbers
than on this occasion. The migration of these birds extends over a period of
two weeks.

Mr. Ebel’s father, the late Henry Ebel, lived on this land since 1868 and told
the story that is also related by his son, of the pelicans alighting on this lake,
spreading clear across it, and swimming along in one direction to some shallow
place and apparently driving the fish to the shore, where they scooped them up
with their great bills.

One week later, on October 11, 1931, Mr. Ebel reported a llock of eighteen
pelicans resting on a sand-bar in the Missouri River, which is but a mile and a
half distant from Crystal Lake.— W. R. Felton, Sioux City, Iowa.

Notes on the Nesting of the Bronzed Grackle and Say’s Phoebe.-

In July, 1929, I watched several pairs of Bronzed Crackles (Qui.scalus quiscula
aeneu.s) attending to nesting duties, at Scranton, in southwestern North Dakota.
The birds had built their nests on the steel beams inside of a large coal briquet
plant, which was not in operation at the time. The grackles seemed much at
home and resented our intrusion.

Several years ago I found the nest of a Say’s Phoebe ( Sayornis sayus ) , at
Tuttle, South Dakota, about eighteen miles west of the Missouri River and near
the North Dakota boundary line. The nest was placed over a window in an
abandoned railroad station and contained four eggs at the time. Dr. W. J. Hoff-
man, Acting Surgeon, U. S. Army, observed a few Say’s Phoebes in this region in
1873, while stationed at the Grand River Agency. — William Youngyvorth, Sioux
City, Iowa.

42

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

Some Notes on Birds for 1930. — The first migrant Nighthawk ( Chordeiles
minor minor ) was seen August 25. From this date until the latter part of
September several were seen every evening and from then on until October 13,
flocks of hundreds were seen at dusk. Of late years the main fall migration route
has been a little to the east. The spring route is unknown.

The fall migration was very marked in the entire absence of the Hermit
Thrush (Hylocichla guttata jaxoni ) and a few only of the Olive-backed Thrush
( Hylocihla ustulata swainsoni) on September 1 to 3. Both generally are com-
mon migrants and stay several weeks.

On September 18 there was a migration of female Rose-breasted Grosbeaks
( Hedymeles luclovicianus ) that continued for a couple of days.

On September 23, there was a migration of Catbirds ( Dumetella carolinensis)
that continued for two weeks. This was the first time that I have ever noticed
an increase in the species during migration.

Instead of the usual inci-ease in Cardinals ( Richmondena cardinalis cardinalis)
during the winter season, there was a marked decrease, very few remaining here
this winter. — Katie M. Roads, Hillsboro, Ohio.

Influence of an Osprey on Bronzed Grackles and Pied-billed Grebes. -
On September 26, 1931, while the writer was watching three Pied-billed Grebes
( Podilymbus podiceps podiceps) on the artificial lake in Glen Helen, Antioch
College campus, Yellow Springs, Ohio, an Osprey ( Pandion haliaetus carolinensis )
flew over the water. At the time there were six to eight hundred Bronzed Grackles
( Quiscalus quiscula aeneus ) in the oaks along the east side of the four-acre lake.
About one-third of these pursued the Osprey which circled the lake twice before
“climbing” higher into the air where the wind was much stronger. I believe that
the grackles became discouraged and quit the pursuit because of the stronger
velocity of the chill wind at the higher altitude. Before the grackles saw the
Osprey they were comparatively quiet. For a half hour after the pursuit of the
Osp rey began and ended they kept up a veritable din by their noisy “squeaking”.
As soon as the Osprey was gone 1 looked for the grebes. They had swum inshore
and were taking cover in a small patch of half-submerged rushes, where they re-
mained for twenty minutes or more. Previous to the Osprey’s appearance they
had been feeding, probably on fresh water snails, in the clearer water near the
entrance of the stream which fills the lake. — Louis B. Kalter, Dayton, Ohio.

Notes on the Feeding of the Least Bittern. — On September 5, 1931, a
Least Bittern ( Ixobrychus exilis ) stood on the edge of the mud at the margin of
the shallow water of an upper pool ol a water supply reservoir in Butler County,
Pennsylvania, where water plants and cat-tails grow in islands and clumps. When
first seen, it was standing very still with the head drawn in toward the body
somewhat, and the long hill parallel to the water surface. As I watched, it slowly
iraised one foot and put it down in the water with extreme care. There was
almost no ripple on the water as the bird advanced for about eighteen inches,
making no movement except that of the feet. Then the head and neck shot
forward, the hill pierced the surface of the water and a four-inch fish was cap-
tured by the hill grabbing it in the center of the body. The bittern turned
toward the shore and walked rapidly out of the water holding the bill with the
fish pointing skyward. On shore, the fish was eaten while the tail feathers of the
bird wiggled very much like the wagging of the tail of a contented dog. — Sidney
K. Eastwood, Pittsburgh, Pa.

General Notes

43

Recent Bird Notes from Southern South Dakota. — On July 7, 1931, the
writer had occasion to spend the day in Yankton County, South Dakota, a dis-
tance of about sixty-five miles northwest from Sioux City, Iowa. The following
notes taken there are thought worthy of mention. A male Rocky Mountain Gros-
beak ( Hedymeles melanoceplialus papago) was seen carrying food, and was no
doubt a breeding bird. This must be about the extreme eastern limit of this
western grosbeak. The Western Blue Grosbeak ( Guiruca caerulea interfusa) was
not uncommon in suitable habitats. Several Rock Wrens ( Salpinctes obsoletus
obsoletus) were also seen and heard along the cliffs, on which hundreds of Cliff
Swallows (Petrochelidon lunifrons lunijrons ) had plastered their nests. An inter-
esting overlapping of breeding ranges was also found. The Eastern Towhee ( Pipilo
erythropthalmus erythropthalmus ) was found breeding, and the more western
form, the Arctic Towhee ( Pipilo maculatus arcticus) , was also not uncommon.
The call notes ol the latter bird are very distinct from those of the eastern form.
The Ovenbird ( Seiurus aurocapillus) was found along the Missouri River bot-
toms, and on the uplands the families of the Lark Sparrow ( Chondestes gram-
macus subsp.) were already forming into flocks of forty or fifty birds. — William
Youngwokth, Sioux City, Iowa.

A Large Flock of Wood Ibises in Harrison County, Iowa. — On the1
morning of September 9, 1931, while 1 was approaching the village of Mondamin,
Harrison County, Iowa, from the south, I saw a flock of at least two hundred
Wood Ihises ( Mycteria americana) , which had apparently just taken flight from
along the Missouri River. The exact site where the birds were first seen was

one-half mile from the village. They rose in two groups, which later joined to

form the one large flock. As they wheeled about in great circles, rising appar-
ently to gain the advantage of a strong wind, they made a spectacular and beau-
tiful display, with brilliant white breasts flashing light in unison as the birds

turned again and again. I had a splendid opportunity to observe them through
glasses, and at reasonable range, and even tried to secure a photograph by getting
into a position in advance of the flock, but in so doing the birds were lost from
sight. They were last seen wheeling about very high in the air and traveling
northeastward, about five miles northeast of Mondamin. 1 was surprised to en-
counter these birds, with which I have been familiar in Florida, under tthe cir-
cumstances mentioned. I believe this is the first Iowa record of the species. —
Wallace B. Grange, IJ. S. Biological Survey, Washington, D. C.

White-breasted Nuthatches Occupy a Nest Box. — For the past twenty
years I have been interested in attracting birds to nest boxes at my farm near
Atlantic, Iowa. In that lime Flickers, Red-headed Woodpeckers, Screech Owls,
Sparrow Hawks, Bluebirds, Chickadees, House Wrens and Purple Martins have
reared their families in boxes which I have put up for them. In another location
a pair of Crested Flycatchers did likewise. The past summer (1931) added an-
other box nester to the list, the White-breasted Nuthatch, which is common in
my grove.

The box used by the nuthatch was similar to those put up for woodpeckers,
as described in the book, “Birds of the Wild"’, and was really intended for the
Downy Woodpecker. The box was placed about ten feet from the ground and
nailed to the side ol an elm tree near the garage. The entrance hole was about
an inch in diameter, and the cavity of the box was about four and one-half

44

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

inches square by ten inches deep, as nearly as I recall. 1 here was a small amount
of ground cork placed in the bottom of the cavity, a substance that I have always
used when trying to attract woodpeckers. — Frank C. Pellett, Hamilton, 111.

The Red-Cockaded Woodpecker in Grundy County, Tennessee. —

On August 8, 1931, Mr. Eugene Odum of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and I took
a trip to Beersheba, Tennessee, in the Cumberland Mountains, to see if the Duck
Hawks and Golden Eagles were in that vicinity during the late summer.

While walking along the bluffs, which overlook the deep gorge of Roaring
Fork, and which are covered with pines, spruces and second growth hardwoods,
we heard some unusual bird calls at a point about half way between Beersheba
and Stone Door Cliff. These calls seemed to come from woodpeckers or nut-
hatches, but were quite different from any calls either of us had ever heard before.
The birds resembled Hairy Woodpeckers save for stripes across their backs and
the noisy calls which parents and three young kept making constantly. Being
uncertain as to their identity, we waited until our return to Nashville for a
decision. The size, color, calls, habits, and habitats proved them to be the Red-
cockaded Woodpeckers ( Dryobates borealis), a species new to both of us.

Further investigation shows that Dr. Harry Fortner of the University of
Tennessee reported them to Mr. A. F. Ganier some six or eight years ago from
Beersheba; that Mr. S. N. Rhoads found them in 1895 near Jamestown, Tennes-
see, in a similar habitat; and also that Fox took a specimen at Rockwood, Tennes-
see, April 4, 1884. Since these are the only records for this species in Tennessee
it is evident that Dryobates borealis is a very rare bird in this latitude west of
the Alleghanies. — George R. Mayfield, Nashville, Tenn.

The Red-headed Woodpecker as a Mouser. — The streets past my home
are paved with smooth unbroken concrete slabs, twenty-four feet wide, with a
curbstone six inches high at the sides. Just across the street is a school grove
consisting of many fine old shade trees. Robins, Blue Jays, Red-headed Wood-
peckers, and several other species make their home in this grove.

On the afternoon of July 28, 1931, I noticed a mouse ( Mus domesticus)
running on the pavement. What could have caused this little creature to come
out in broad daylight and parade on the pavement 1 could not tell, but it had
not gone very far when a Red-headed Woodpecker ( Melanerpes erythrocephalus)
darted down out of the grove and made an attack upon it. The woodpecker
struck the mouse several hard and vicious blows with its stout bill, rolling and
tossing it over and over, ft appeared that a moment more of such treatment
must have finished the mouse, had not a vehicle approached just at that instant,
threatening to crush both the red-head afd its prey. The bird darted away
just in time to save itself, and the mouse, not having been struck by the wheels,
hurriedly limped to the edge of the pavement, got over the curb with difficulty,
and hid in the grass. The red head flew back immediately to see what had be-
come of its prospect for dinner, but the mouse was so well hidden that the bird
had to give up the chase.

This bird is somewhat erratic in its migrations, but is usually to be found
here in fair numbers in the summer time. Ordinarily it catches and devours
great numbers of cicadas, June-beetles, grasshoppers, dragonflies, and many other
insects, both large and small, but although 1 have carefully observed it for many
years, I had never before seen it attack a rodent.— E. D. Nauman, Sigourney. Iowa.

General Notes

45

The Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher in Indiana. — I noticed in the WlLSON Bulle-
tin for September, 1931, p. 230, that Margaret L. Weir oi Hawarden, Iowa, says
concerning the Blue-gray Gnatcatcher ( Polioptila caerulea caerulea ) that she
found its nest hanging in the fork of a branch some twenty-six feet over the side-
walk. 1 have had some experience with this interesting bird, but it had a very

different nest from the one she described. I did not know the Blue-gray Gnat-
catcher ever built anything except the one kind of nest, and that one similar to
but larger than the nest of the Ruby-throated Hummingbird. A nest that we
found this summer was on top of a dead limb of a tree, where the branch forked
with one above the other, and this nest was built upon the lower branch so that

the other fork was a sort of a protection over the nest.

When we first noticed the bird it was fighting two Hairy Woodpeckers which
were in the same tree. Then it llew immediately to the nest with an insect or
worm for the young, making it easy to see the nest. We watched for some time,
noting how suitably the nest was placed and how well it was built. It was about
twenty feet from the ground near the river in Mounds State Park, which is about
three miles from this place. A few days later we returned to the place to find
the three young birds out in the tree, begging for food and following the parents
about to be fed. Later we went to try to get the nest and found that it had
disappeared. We hunted for it on the ground but it was gone. It was perfectly
made and about four inches deep, covered with lichens. Several pairs of these
tiny birds were in the same park during the summer, indicating they were nesting
thereabouts. — Mrs. Horace P. Cook, Anderson, lnd.

Unusual Nesting Site of Chimney Swifts. — April 1. 1930, found me badly
in need of some Senega Snakeroot (Polygala senega) plants, a plant bearing a
root that is much used in medicine, so early that morning I set forth with a com-
panion in quest of some. We finally found some on a southern hillside overlook-
ing the rocky, winding stream of Bullfork, a small creek northeast of my home.
But we did not work long, for a sudden rain forced us to seek shelter. About a
quarter of a mile from us on the opposite side of the hill was an old unused log
house, and my companion and I hastened to reach it before we became wet, hut
as the rain gained steadily in volume we were forced to give up the idea of
collecting more plants.

We ate our lunch, and, becoming tired of inactivity, began to explore the
old house. The ceiling was little higher than the height of an average man, and
the attic was reached through a square hole cut in one corner of the ceiling. I
climbed through this, and after becoming accustomed to the poor light, the first
thing I noted was a row of seven nests of the Chimney Swift ( Chaetura pelagica )
plastered to the southern wall, about three feet beneath the comb. The three
middle nests were built complete to the last stick, but two nests on either side of
the completed three were hut half finished. The nests were straight in line,
spaced almost alike. I should say that they averaged about eight inches apart.
Cracks in the walls of the attic allowed about half light to enter, hut the only
way that the swifts could have entered was through one eight-inch tile set in the
roof, a tile that had once served as a “collar’- for a stove pipe that had come from
a stove in the lower room through a hole in the attic floor, and then through the
tile in the roof to the outside.

I wondered if one pair of swifts had built the seven nests, and went back
later in the spring to see if I could learn, hut some one had partly demolished the

46

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

old building so, of course, the swifts were not there. However, a pair of Phoebes
(Savornis phoebe ) were using a nest that I had seen on my first trip, a many-
storied nest above the north window ol the downstairs room. — Grant Henderson,
Greensburg, Ind.

Some Observations on the Eastern Willet at Nesting Time. — 1 he nest of
the Eastern Willet ( Catoptrophorus semipalmatus semipalmatus) , its notes and
migrations, have been cpiite well covered, but little seems to have been written
about the nesting habits and period of incubation.

I had the opportunity during April and part of May, 1931, to spend a part
of the time along a sandy fill where these birds nest abundantly, but unluckily
had to leave before completing the season with them. The Long Island Fill and
the connected Oysterbed Island are in the neighborhood of the Georgia-South
Carolina state line, and on the north side of the Savannah River, near the en-
trance, and looking out toward Callibogue Sound and the open sea. The willets
feed on the extensive mudflats and nest in the thick Bermuda grass on the higher
sandy ground.

The nests show the individuality of the pair, though always scanty as nests
go, as sometimes eggs are laid on the ground and very little grass is added during
the incubation. Others prepare a nest before laying the eggs, and while some use
dry grasses only, others include some green material. In all, eleven nests were
logged and visited from day to day as eggs were added. No attempt was made
to set up a blind near the nests. The presence of the birds was noted with ref-
erence to the time of day, and of tides, and it was found that the eggs were
seldom uncovered for more than a few minutes at a time, after incubation had
commenced, which was as soon as the last egg was laid. One exception to this
concerned a nest which could be found uncovered quite often, and it later seemed
that only one bird was caring for the hatching. Whether this was a case of
desertion or accident, of course cannot be told, but if this nest alone had been
relied on, some very different, and erroneous conclusions might have been reached.

Both birds incubate. They change at quite frequent intervals, though flush-
ing the bird from the nest may have been the reason. To determine this, a small
swab covered with prussian blue in oil, in once case, and with smeary maroon
paint in another, was placed in the nest. One pair appeared with maroon paint
on the wing of one and the belly of the other. The second pair had one unmarked
bird, and one with a large blue area underneath. Several times I flushed one
bird, and a half hour later found its mate on the eggs. The feeding grounds are
so near that usually both birds are near, or within call.

In a couple of cases the birds would allow close approach, before leaving
the eggs. One, in particular, would sometimes stay until I parted the grasses
directly overhead. 1 he eggs are laid at one or two day intervals, varying with
different pairs, and until the full clutch is laid are not covered at all times. The
temperature and protective coloring probably makes covering unnecessary.

After leaving the vicinity, I made a trip back, and found two young birds in
the nest. The clutch had been completed on May 6 or 7, and this was the 30th,
which gives an incubation period of twenty-three or twenty-four days. These
two young had been hatched not much over an hour, yet one persisted in trying
to crawl into the surrounding grass, 'file young birds are seldom seen from the
time of hatching until the flight feathers are partly grown, when they begin
picking up food along the sand and the mudfiat edges.

General Notes

47

After the nesting season the willets are shy and retiring, not nearly so con-
spicuous as the yellowlegs, until the next spring, when they become one ol the
noisiest birds of this locality, often crying all night long, as well as in the day.

During the winter months there are a few Western Willets ( Catoptrophorus
semipalmatus inornatus) mixed with the few Eastern Willets present. 1 have
never been able to identify them in the field, but the larger size and longer hill
ol the western bird is plainly apparent when in the hand.

The willets of this coast have certainly been increasing during the last few
years, lor where there were two or three pairs in 1923, now there are at least
twenty pairs. On April 26, 1931, a few miles to the southward, a flock ol
twenty migrating birds was seen. At this time most of the locally breeding birds
were already mated. — Ivan R. Tomkins, Savannah, Ga.

Additional Bird Records for South Dakota. — The manuscript for Bulle-
tin No. 9, Birds of South Dakota, passed from the authors to the Department of
Publications of the University of South Dakota during the winter of 1916. Due
to the stress of the war period and to lack of funds, it was not published until
March, 1921. The authors had no control over these circumstances, and during
this interval did not have access to the manuscript. But from 1916 to the present
we have made many corrections and revisions, and have added twenty-nine species
and subspecies to the former list.

It seems necessary because of lack of authentic records to eliminate Bona-
parte’s Gull and the Greater Snow Goose from the list, leaving a total of 320 in
the old list, or, with the new additions, a total of 349 species and subspecies for
the state. It is not practicable to publish a new, revised edition at this time,
hence we are submitting the new records. The University Museum has acted as a
clearing house, and is grateful to the many observers over the state for assistance
rendered in keeping the records, as far as known, up to date.

American Egret ( Casmerodius alhus egretla) . A straggler. Authentically
identified on June 4, 1929, by W. F. Kubichek, of Coe College at Cedar Rapids,
Iowa. This bird was with a colony of Black-crowned Night Herons on a wooded
island in Rush Lake, Day County. (See note by Youngworth, Wilson Bulletin,
XLIII, December, 1931, p. 309).

Little Blue Heron ( Florida caerulea caerulea) . A straggler. One seen by
W. H. Over and H. Rice in Clay County, June 11, 1921. Later seen by L. G.
Atherton of Flandreau.

White Ibis (Guaru alba). An old record, of about 1890, but one was re-
peatedly seen during that summer at a small lake in the northern part of Clay
County by Dr. G. S. Agersborg and Fred Heglin. Dr. Agersborg was the first
resident bird student of note in South Dakota, and published a list of birds of
Clay and Yankton Counties in the Auk in 1885.

White-winged Scoter ( MelaniUu degl.andi) . Rare in migration. Taken on
Lake Madison, Lake County, by J. C. Green of Sioux Falls. Specimen now in
the University Museum.

White-rumped Sandpiper ( Pisobia fuscicollis) . Fairly common in migration.
Specimens taken in Sanborn County are in the Museum.

Western Sandpiper ( Ereunetes maurii) . Common some years in migration.
Skins are in the Museum that were taken in Lyman County, April 13, 1928, by
Walter Thietje.

48

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

Red Phalarope ( Phalaropus fulicarius) . Fairly common in migration up the
eastern side of the state. Skins in the Museum.

Broad-tailed Hummingbird ( Selasphorus platycercus plcitycercus) . In “Birds
of the Northwest”, by Elliott Coues (1874), two records are mentioned for the
Black Hills. Mr. C. H. Holden, a correspondent of Dr. Coues, reports a nest.
Its range is probably on the western slope of the Hills, but the writers have never
seen a specimen in the Black Hills.

Northern Crested Flycatcher (Myiarchus crinitus boreus) . Reported as nest-
ing in Yankton County by Dr. A. P. Larrabee of Yankton College, and in Min-
nehaha County by C. .]. Stringham, who sent the hollow limb and nest to the
Museum.

Acadian Flycatcher ( Em pidonax virescens) . Reported by T. C. Stephens for
June 2, 1918, in “A Preliminary List for Union County” in the Proceedings of
the Iowa Academy of Science, XXV. Minnehaha County, 1920, C. J. Stringham.
Probably nests sparingly in the southeast corner of the state.

Hoyt’s Horned Lark ( Otocoris alpestris hoyti) . Probably our most common
winter visitor.

Reeky Mountain Nuthatch ( Sitta carolinensis nelsoni) . Listed from Elk
Creek, Black Hills, under the name of Slender-billed Nuthatch (S. c. aculeata) ,
by George Bird Grinnell (Report of a Reconnaissance of the Black Hills, by
William Ludlow, Captain of Engineers, U. S. Army, Washington, D. C., 1875),
prior to the separation of nelsoni as a subspecies distinct from S. c. aculeata
of the west coast region.

Carolina Wren ( Thryothorus ludovicianus ludovicianus) . A straggler, ''tank-
ton County, 1929, A. P. Larrabee.

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher ( Polioptila caerulea caerulea) . Minnehaha County,
1920, C. J. Stringham. Faulk County, 1924, Mrs. C. M. Norton. Probably a
rare summer resident as it has nested across the Big Sioux River at Hawarden,
Iowa, 1931. See the report by Margaret L. Weir in the Wilson Bulletin, Vol.
XL1IT, 1931, page 230.

Yellow-throated Vireo ( Vireo flavifrons) . A migrant. Yankton County, 1921,
A. P. Larrabee of Yankton College.

Blue-headed Vireo ( Vireo solitarius solilarius ) . Minnehaha County, 1920,
C. J. Stringham. Yankton County, 1921, A. P. Larrabee.

Prothonotary Warbler ( Protonotaria citrea). A migrant. Clay County, May
22, 1926, E. P. Churchill and W. H. Over. Union County, May 12, 1929, W. F.
Kubichek.

Northern Parula Warbler (Compsolhlypis arnericana pusilla) . A migrant.
Minnehaha County, 1920, C. .1. Stringham. Yankton County, 1921, A. P. Larrabee.

Cape May Warbler ( Dendroica ligrina) . A migrant. Clay County, May 17,
1920, W. H. Over and W. M. Davidson, and many times later.

Black-throated Blue Warhler (Dendroica caerulescens caerulescens) . A mi-
grant. Minnehaha County, 1920, C. J. Stringham, A. Schaeffer, Adrian Larson.
Faulk County, Mrs. C. M. Norton.

General Notes

49

Cerulean Warbler ( Dendroica cerulea) . A migrant. Minnehaha County,

1920, C. J. Stringham. Faulk County, Mrs. C. M. Norton .

Black-throated Green Warbler (Dendroica virens virens). A migrant. Union
County, 1931, William Youngworth (see the Wilson Bulletin, XLI1I, No. 3,
p. 223).

Northern Pine Warbler (Dendroica pinus pinus) . Dr. Charles E. McChesney
(Notes on the Birds of Fort Sisseton, Dakota Territory, United States Geological
Survey, Bulletin No. 5) reports as follows for this species: “Is seen in small

numbers only, from May 22 until about the first of June each year; does not breed
on the Coteau des Prairies to my knowledge.”

Connecticut Warbler (Oporornis agilis) . A migrant. Minnehaha County,

1921, C. J. Stringham. Spink County, 1931, J. F. Brenckle.

Canada Warbler ( Wilsonia canadensis). Dr. Charles E. McChesney (Notes
on the Birds of Fort Sisseton, Dakota Territory) says: “This warbler arrives

by the 22nd of May, and is seen in some numbers for a few days, but appears
to depart by the 1st of June, as I have never observed it after that date.”

Gray-crowned Rosy Finch (Leucosticte tephrocotis tephrocotis) . Frequent
winter visitor in the Black Hills. W. H. Over, November, 1921. Often fed during
the winter by W. J. Sharwood of Deadwood, Laurence County.

Hepburn’s Rosy Finch ( Leucosticte tephrocotis littoralis) . Stragglers have
been seen with the typical form of the species during the winter in the Black
Hills by W. J. Sharwood of Deadwood, Laurence County.

Bendire’s Crossbill ( Loxia curvirostra hendirei) . Black Hills, October 16,
1903, Merritt Cary. McPherson County, July 29, 1931, Clarence Cottam of the
United States Biological Survey. (See the Wilson Bulletin, XLI1I, 1931, page
311, “Some New Bird Records for South Dakota”, by Mr. Cottam).

Swamp Sparrow ( Melospiza georgiana) . A summer resident. In the list of
birds seen, Lieutenant G. K. Warren (A Preliminary Report of Explorations in
Nebraska and Dakota, by F. V. Hayden; War Department Annual Report for
1858) records the Swamp Sparrow from the mouth of the Vermilion River (now
Clay County) in 1857. Specimens in the Museum taken by F. A. Patton in Sand-
born County in 1921. — William H. Over and Craig S. Thoms, Vermilion, S. D.

50

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

PROCEEDINGS OF WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB

By Jesse M. Shaver, Former Secretary

The Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Wilson Ornithological Club was held
at New Orleans, Louisiana, on December 26-29, 1931, in connection with the
general sessions of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Saturday and Sunday (December 26 and 27), the Wilson Club made an excur-
sion to Avery Island for the purpose of studying water birds. Here, Honorable
E. A. Mcllhenny entertained in true southern fashion. It was a memorable
trip, especially for our members from the north. Each one will long remember
the view of Snowy Egrets coming to roost in the marsh at twilight. There also
remains the remembrance of a kindly, portly gentleman who, as our host, taught
us the real meaning of southern hospitality. It is thus that we remember E. A.
Mcllhenny.

Monday and the morning of Tuesday were given to the reading of papers
by our members and to a brief business meeting. These meetings were held in
Gibson Hall, Tulane University.

Since President Stack was absent due to illness, Secretary Shaver called the
meeting to order and called for nominations for a temporary chairman. Lynds
Jones was elected and presided over the rest of the sessions.

Tuesday afternoon was given over to the presentation of moving pictures
with some business being considered. The Annual Dinner was held on Tuesday
evening, December 29, in the Evangeline Room of Hotel De Soto (our head-
quarters hotel).

Business Sessions

The business sessions were held on Monday from 9:20 to 10:00 A. M. and
interspersed between the moving pictures of Tuesday afternoon's session.

At the Monday morning business meeting, the minutes of the previous meet-
ing were approved without being read, since they had previously been published
in the Wilson Bulletin (Vol. XLIII, No. 1, pages 66-86). The Secretary’s re-
port was regarded as satisfactory under existing financial conditions. It showed
a total membership of 756 with 131 delinquent members. The Editor reported
on a number of details touching the Wilson Bulletin. Exact figures on sub-
scribers and exchanges were not given since the report was given extempo-
raneously. The full report of the Editor as well as that of the other officers will
be found in this number of the Bulletin. The Treasurer’s report was read, in
the absence of the Treasurer, by T. C. Stephens. It was referred to the Auditing
Committee for consideration. All new members temporarily elected by the Elec-
toral Board were approved. T. C. Stephens read the report of F. P. Allen,
Librarian, bringing up certain matters pertaining to the Library of the Wilson
Ornithological Club. On motion made by A. E. Ganier, seconded, and passed,
these matters were referred to the Executive Council for consideration and ac-
tion. Lynds Jones made a report supplementary to that of the Library Com-
mittee indicating that a sample reproduction of an out-of-print number of the
Wilson Bulletin had been made at a cost of $18.75. A motion to authorize
the Treasurer to pay this amount was unanimously passed. The temporary
committees appointed at this time were: the Committee on Nominations, the

Committee on Resolutions, and the Auditing Committee.

The Committee on Nominations was composed of Mrs. H. J. Taylor, T. C.
Stephens, and Paul R. Elliott. The Committee on Resolutions was composed of

Proceedings

51

A. F. Ganier, Glenn W. Bell, and Fannye Cook. Josselyn Van Tyne and W. D.
Johnson were appointed on the Auditing Committee.

At the Tuesday afternoon session, all committees reported.

The report of the Committee on Nominations was accepted and, on motion,
the Secretary was instructed to cast one ballot for the slate. The new officers
thus elected were:

President: Jesse M. Shaver, George Peabody College lor Teachers, Nash-

ville, Tennessee.

First Vice-President: E. L. Moseley, State Teachers College, Bowling Green,

Ohio.

Second Vice-President: Josselyn Van Tyne, University of Michigan, Ann

Arbor, Michigan.

Secretary: Lawrence E. Hicks, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Treasurer: W. M. Rosene, Ogden, Iowa.

Councillors:

A. F. Ganier, Nashville, Tennessee.

Lynds Jones, Oberlin, Ohio.

Myron H. Swenk, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.

The Committee on Resolutions made the following report which was unani-
mously adopted:

Resolved, The Wilson Ornithological Club, assembled for its eighteenth an-
nual meeting at New Orleans, Louisiana, this 29th day of December, 1931, wishes
to record its thanks and appreciation to:

Tulane University, for the use of its buildings and equipment, so well
adapted to our meetings;

To our fellow-member, Edward Avery Mcllhenny, for his courtesies and hos-
pitality in entertaining the Club at New Iberia and on his estate at Avery Island,
to view the unique plant life of the locality and the large assemblage of water
and other birds wintering there;

To our local members and constituents in the New Orleans district, who by
their interest and assistance, have helped to make this meeting a success;

To our efficient officers, particularly to Secretary Shaver, Editor Stephens,
and Treasurer Rosene, who by so generously giving of their time and interest
to the Club, have enabled it to continue the high standards set in the past.

Whereas, our National Bird, the Bald Eagle, has become so rare within the
interior of our country that its complete extermination is threatened and that

W'hereas, those which reside upon our seacoasts subsist almost entirely upon
fish and therefore do little or no harm to the property of man, therefore be it

Resolved, that The Wilson Ornithological Club earnestly advocates that leg-
islation be enacted which will bring about the complete protection of the Bald
Eagle within the United States.

Whereas, The Wilson Ornithological Club is interested in the conservation of
all forms of wild life;

And Whereas, The Protective laws for grizzly and brown bears of Alaska
have been largely removed; And Whereas, they are in danger of extermination
due to encroachment of industry, including the Paper Pulp Mills proposed for
Admiralty and Chicagof Islands:

And Whereas, these Islands have, it is estimated, over half the grizzly and
brown bear population of Alaska; be it

52

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

Resolved , that the Biological Survey and the Alaska Game Commission re-
enact adequate protective laws for the Alaska hears generally; and be it further
Resolved, that the Admiralty and Chicagof Islands be established as perma-
nent preserves or national parks for the protection of the Alaska grizzly bears;
be it further

Resolved, that copies of this Resolution he sent to Members of Congress,
The Biological Survey, The Alaska Game Commission, and Special Senate Com-
mittee on wild life resources.

The Auditing Committee reported that the Treasurer’s accounts were well
kept, accurate, and balanced. The Committee’s report was accepted and the
Treasurer’s report approved.

At the close of the Tuesday afternoon program, the Acting President, Lynds
Jones, declared the meeting adjourned.

Social Features

The entertainment of the Club at Avery Island by Mr. E. A. Mcllhenny
was by far the outstanding social event of the meeting. Mr. Mclllhenny is a
most gracious host who plans everything for the comfort of his guests, even to
the minutest detail.

The Annual Dinner was held Tuesday evening, December 29, in the Evange-
line Room of the DeSoto Hotel. The dinner was a great success in every way.
An attractive menu was served. Dr. John McBryde of Tulane University, served
as Toastmaster, introducing each of the speakers in his usual charming manner.
The following toasts were on the program:

Looking Backwards. Lynds Jones.

Looking Forwards. Mrs. H. J. Taylor.

The Wilson Bulletin. T. C. Stephens.

A Backward Glance at the History of the National Association of Audubon
Societies. T. Gilbert Pearson.

At noon on both Monday and Tuesday, the members bad tbe pleasure of
lunching together in the dining room in Gibson Hall.

Exhibits

No special exhibits were arranged for this meeting of the Wilson Orni-
thological Club. However, Mr. Hopkins of the Louisiana State Department of
Conservation, kindly invited our members to visit the Conservation Museum where
many interesting exhibits were arranged. Mr. Frank Carroll also kindly invited
members to visit his own personal collections.

Program of Papers

1 he program is given below just as it was carried out, which varies slightly
from the order in which it was announced in the program printed for the meeting.

Monday Morning, December 28, 1931

Mr. Stanley C. Arthur welcomed the Wilson Club to New Orleans in a few
well-chosen words. The response on behalf of the Club was made by Dr. Lynds
Jones.

1. Observations from a Ninety by Two Hundred and Eight Foot Town Lot. Mrs.
Elizabeth Allen Satterthwait, Webster Groves, Mo.

Over a period of thirteen years, with sometimes a break of several weeks’
absence from home, bird observations have been made from an improved city
lot, 90 x208 , in Webster Groves, Missouri, and 102 species and varieties have
been recorded. Observations have been made of a few unusual species, in-

Proceedings

53

eluding the European Tree Sparrow (found in the United States only in the
vicinity of St. Louis). Six different thrushes have been handed, and notes
made regarding the handing, feeding and measuring of approximately forty
species.

2. Notes on the Birds of the Campus of The Berry School for Boys. (Lantern.)
Glenn W. Bell, The Berry School for Boys, Mount Berry, Ga.

This study was carried on from September 6, until May 6, in each of the
school years of 1928-1929, 1929-1930, and 1930-1931, respectively. The study
was made at different intervals during the day. In the spring time, the early
morning was chosen for the study of the nesting activities of the birds.

A feeding station attracted many birds. Over a thousand individual birds
were captured and banded with the United States Biological Survey bands.
In addition to the aluminum bands, colored celluloid bands were used on a
few birds. Notes were kept on the various birds seen on the campus.

Maps were made of the campus, and each bird’s nest was indicated on the
maps. 1 here were few nests destroyed. Bluebird nests increased when nest-
ing boxes were provided. There were about the same number of the other
birds nesting on the campus during each of the three years. In many cases
the nests were near the nesting sites of the preceding year.

3. Ornithological Exploration in British Honduras. (Lantern.) Josselyn Van
Tyne, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The speaker gave an account of the work of an expedition from the Uni-
versity of Michigan Museum of Zoology which in February and March, 1931,
penetrated to the little known “Southern Pine Ridge” south of El Cayo,
British Honduras. The “Pine Ridge” is an area of savannah and pine forest
very similar in appearance to those of Georgia and Florida. Although at 17°
N. latitude and an altitude of less than fifteen hundred feet, the pine forest
is sharply demarked from the surrounding rain-forest jungle and has a very
distinctive avifauna. Characteristic birds of the pine ridge were Bulanosphyra,
formiempra, Myiochanes pertinax, Pionus senilis, Dendroica graciae , Aimophila
rufescens, and an hitherto undescribed vireo.

4. The Relation of Temperature and Relative Humidity to the Time of Ending
of the Evening Song of Birds. (Lantern.) Paul R. Elliott, Richard Hardy
Memorial School, Richard City, Tenn.

This paper is a report of a study made at Nashville, Tennesse, over a period
of 147 consecutive days in the spring and summer of 1930, to determine any
existing relations between temperature or relative humidity and the time at
which the various birds stopped their evening songs. It was found that tem-
perature was highly significant in the case of the Mockingbird, only. Relative
humidity was of slight importance, not even being very significant with the
Yellow-hilled Cuckoo.

5. A Brief Survey of the Bird Life of Baldwin County, Ala. Helen M. Edwards
(Mrs. W. H.), Fairhope, Ala.

A brief summary of the outstanding points of interest in the bird life of
Baldwin County, Alabama, pointing out the differences between conditions
that are found to exist and those that would he expected by a visitor from
some other region. No attempt is made to give a complete faunal list, and
only those species are named whose occurrence seems to be of particular
interest.

6. Nesting of the Golden Eagle in Tennessee. (Lantern.) A. F. Canier, Nash-
ville, Tenn.

A resume of the present status of the Golden Eagle in the Southern Ap-
palachians with particular reference to its occurrence at the breeding season
in several places in the mountains of Tennessee. An occupied nest, which
was discovered in the spring of 1931, was depicted by a number of views.

54

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

7. Pioneers in Kansas Ornithology. (Mrs. H. J.) Rose S. Taylor, Berkeley, Cal.

F. H. Snow and Colonel N. S. Goss are pioneers in Kansas Ornithology.
Snow’s work began when he was called to the University oi Kansas which
opened its doors September, 1866. Snow’s interest in birds continued through-
out his life. He published several catalogues of the birds of Kansas. His
duties as Professor of the Natural Sciences and later as Chancellor did not
allow any one held to absorb him.

Colonel N. S. Goss was an ornithologist from his youth up. He came to
Kansas in 1857. He was a successful business man and when he had made a
comfortable fortune he devoted his entire time to ornithology. He traveled
widely to know birds. He was one of the original members of the A. O. U.
and never failed to attend its meetings. His large collection of birds — all his
own mounting — he gave to the state in 1881. His book, History of Birds oj
Kansas is the summing up of bis life work.

8. The Conservation Policy of the National Association of Audubon Societies.
(Lantern.) T. Gilbert Pearson, National Association of Audubon Societies,
New York City.

A brief survey of some of the important activities of the National Associa-
tion of Audubon Societies both in America and foreign countries was
presented.

9. The Rhythmical Ending of the Robin’s Evening Song in Relation to the Nest-
ing Cycle. (Lantern.) Joe Young West, Baird, Miss. Read, in the absence
of the author, by J. M. Shaver.

By means of the Macbeth Illuminometer records were kept of the light in-
tensity in foot candles at the ending of the Robin’s evening song during the
first two periods of the nesting season (February 17 to June 11, 1931). Rec-
ords of physiological activities of individual pairs of birds were kept. The
data indicate that there is no definite rhythm in the light intensity at the
time of the ending of the last evening song of individual Robins in relation
to the nesting season. Physiological changes in male Robins relating to the
nesting cycle do not influence this specific reaction to light. There is great
irregularity in variation of light intensity in foot candles at the ending of the
last evening song and this variation is greatest during the establishment of
territory.

10. Curvature of Wing and Soaring Flight. (Lantern.) W. R. Taber, Jr., Kansas,
Illinois. Read, in the absence of the author, by T. C. Stephens.

This paper explains the mechanics of soaring flight. It is the explanation
of the effect of the curvature of the under surface of birds’ wings in changing
the direction of air currents, thereby producing the forces necessary to over-
come gravity and to thrust the bird forward.

11. I he Contribution of the Zoophile to Science. Mrs. Charles Noel Edge, New
York City.

M rs. Edge pointed out the distinctive contribution of scientists wbo write
popular books and papers well, to the advancement of ornithology. The
nature-lover may arouse interest in worth-while activities.

12. Observations on the Nesting ol the Blue-gray Gnatcatcher. Mrs. Margaret
Morse Nice, Columbus, Ohio. Read, in the absence of the author, by Miss
Fannye Cook.

The male Blue-gray Gnatcatcher does not sing to proclaim his territory;
perhaps the spee which is constantly given by both birds serves this purpose.
Both male and female labor equally at nest building; during incubation they
relieve each other at short intervals (15 to 40 minutes); they carry tiny
insects to the young, one by one at a rapid rate. Intense activity and close
cooperation between the pair are characteristic of this species.

Proceedings

55

13. The Relation of Song to the Nesting Season of Birds. (Lantern.) Glenn W.
Bell, The Berry School for Boys, Mount Berry, Ga.

This is a study of the relation of song, especially the early morning song,
to the progress of the nesting season of birds, in particular that of the Brown
Thrasher, Mockingbird, Cardinal, Wood Thrush, Chipping Sparrow, Pine
Warbler, and Mourning Dove. The study was carried on from the time the
birds began to sing in the spring, until May 6 in each of three years: 1929,
1930, 1931, respectively, on the campus of the Mount Berry School for Boys,
Mount Berry, Georgia. The early morning, from the time the birds began to
sing until after sun-up, was chosen for the daily period of study. Some addi-
tional observations were frequently made during the day, such as: finding
nests, locating territories, and observing the general activities of the birds.

The amount and intensity of song was recorded and compared with the
nesting activities of the individual bird. Nesting activities seemed to retard
the early morning song. When incubation begins, the song is retarded in all
species. In most cases, no song was heard early in the morning after incu-
bation began. Therefore, there appears to be a gradual decrease of song as
nesting activities progress.

14. The Egg-Laying Cycle of the Mourning Dove. (Lantern.) L. J. Cole, Uni-
versity of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.

This paper reports the egg-production record of a captive Mourning Dove
during five seasons. Most of the time she has been mated with a male Mourn-
ing Dove but in 1928 was mated to a domesticated Ring Dove. Her production
in the different laying periods has been as follows.

1927:

May 9

to

July 25,

16

eggs

in

77

days

1928 :

March

11

to

August

2,

19

eggs

in

143

days

1929:

April

19

to

August

6,

28

eggs

in

108

days

1930:

April

26

to

August

16,

24

eggs

in

111

days

1931:

April

13

to

August

3,

23

eggs

in

117

days

Total

110

eggs

in

556

days

Fertility with Mourning Dove mate has been good. Eggs were transferred to
other birds to hatch and rear. Variability in egg size shows little relation to
season, but the second egg of a clutch is usually larger than the first. The
sex-ratio for 62 young is 45.2% males (28 males to 34 females). Sex-ratio
for first eggs of clutches is 50% males to 50% females; of second eggs, 39%
males to 61% females.

15. The Nesting Habits and Growth of the Black Skimmer ( Rvnchops nigra).
Frank M. Carroll, New Orleans, La.

Specimens of eggs and all stages from newly-hatched young to adult were
shown. Beginning with a description of the adult bird, the various habits
and characteristics were outlined after which their method of nesting was
considered. The process of incubation was explained and illustrated with em-
bryological specimens. The growth of the chick to maturity was described.

16. Temperature Laws and Life Zones. (Lantern.) S. Charles Kendeigh, The
Baldwin Bird Research Laboratory and Western Reserve University, Cleve-
land, Ohio.

Merriam’s Temperature Laws, formulated in 1894, and accepted by many
ornithologists, may he criticized upon the following basis: (1) Temperatures

at other seasons of the year than the breeding period are important; (2) The
mere cartographic agreement between isotherms and boundaries of life zones
is without particular significance; (3) The statistical data upon which Mer-
riam based his arguments were incorrectly compiled; (4) The method which
was used in summing temperatures is without physiological basis or practical
application; and (5) Other phases of temperature or other factors aside from
temperature may be the more important.

Experimental studies performed at the Baldwin Research Laboratory indi-
cate that temperature, relative length of day and night, and food supply are

56

The Wiison Bulletin — March, 1932

all correlated factors of considerable importance in controlling the distribu-
tion, migration, and abundance of birds.

In so far as the life-zone concept is based upon Merriam’s Temperature
Laws, it is unacceptable. For this concept to survive, it must lie based upon
the actual distribution of the birds.

17. The Failure of the System in Ecological Work. V. E. Shelford, University of
Illinois, Urbana, 111.

The failure of temperature summing in relation to the development of in-
vertebrates and the lack of accord between life zones and ecological phe-
nomena was stressed. Lack of agreement between communities and life zones
was pointed out.

18. Nesting Waterbirds of South Dakota. (16 mm. motion pictures.) W. H.
Over, University of South Dakota, Vermillion, S. D.

Interesting moving pictures of the varied water bird life of the lakes oi this
ornithologically interesting state.

19. Observations on Migrations of Blue Geese and Double-crested Cormorants.
(Lantern.) W. F. Kubichek, Coe College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Observations on the migrations of the Double-crested Cormorants, with a
chart showing recoveries oi bands placed on the birds at Waubay Lake, S. D.
Notes on the migration of Blue Geese with special reference to the concen-
tration during the spring migration in the Coteau region of South Dakota

20. The Blue Goose at Avery Island. (35 mm. moving pictures.) E. A. Mcllhenny.
Avery Island, La.

Showing the almost unbelieveable numbers of Blue Geese concentrated on
the Louisiana coast during the winter months.

21. Methods of Bird Study. (35 mm. moving pictures.) S. Prentiss Baldwin
and S. Charles Kendeigh, The Baldwin Bird Research Laboratory, Cleveland,
Ohio.

Bird-study at the Baldwin Bird Research Laboratory consists of research
into the development, life-history, physiology, and ecology of birds. These
motion pictures show some of the methods and instruments used in this study.

The growth of the embryo within the shell is t he object of special study
with the microscope, and motion pictures of this continuous development are
being made. Other studies deal with the development of specific gravity of
the bird with the expansion of the lungs and air-sacs.

Special interest attaches to the study of body temperatures and the resistance
of birds to low and high air temperatures, as t his may throw new light on
the problem of bird migration, distribution, and abundance.

The temperature of the bird in the nest is obtained, without the bird’s
awareness, by means of long thermocouples and electrical temperature-record-
ing devices. Other instruments record every visit of the bird to the nest to
incubate the eggs or feed the young.

Such studies are yielding much of new interest in the field of ornithological
research.

22. The Pelican. (35 mm. motion pictures.) Stanley C. Arthur, New Orleans, La.

The nesting of the Brown Pelican on certain mangrove-overgrown islands
at the mouth ol the Mississippi River v'!,s depicted. The interesting story of
the Pelican on the seal of state ol Louisiana was revealed also.

23. The Terns at Bird Key, Tortugas Islands, Florida. (35 mm. moving pictures.)
.1. Paul Visscher, Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

Fascinating views of the Noddy and Sooty Terns of Rird Key — made famous
by the homing studies of Watson.

24. Feathered Fishers ol Our Southland Swamps. (35 mm. moving pictures.)
II. L. Stoddard, U. S. Biological Survey, Washington, D. C.

Marvelous pictures of the Egrets, Herons, Wood Ibis, etc., of southern
swamps.

Proceedings

57

25. The Herons and Egrets of Louisiana. (35 nun. moving pictures.) E. A.
Mclllhenny, Avery Island, Louisiana.

Excellent pictures of the nesting water birds at Avery Island including
wonderful views of a nesting colony of Snowy Egrets, and an early film used
to combat plume hunting.

26. Present Status of the Nesting Warblers of Tennessee. (Read by Title.) George
R. Mayfield, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

This paper discusses the present status of seventeen species of warblers
nesting in middle Tennessee and that of five other species nesting in other
parts of the state. Four species seem to be on the increase; six seem to be
decreasing in numbers; and twelve species are holding their ground. In
numbers they range from abundant as in the case of the Maryland Yellow-
throat and the chat to rare as in the case of the Swainson’s and the Golden-
winged Warbler. The Blackburnian Warbler has not been found in Tennessee
by any member of the Tennessee Ornithological Society, though reported by
earlier observers in Tennessee and in similar habitats in North Garolina. The
earliest dates of arrival during the past five years and the latest dates of de-
parture were also given. Records relied on were those of the author with
some reference to the lists of others.

27. Sketch: Rim Rock and Solitaire. (Read by Title.) Rev. P. B. Peabody,
Topeka, Kans.

A brief survey of the topography of Weston and Crook Counties, Wyoming;
of forests; of the psychology of Townsend’s Solitaire during the autumn, the
winter, and the breeding season. Descriptions of nests, nesting places, and
an outstanding set of eggs were given, illustrated by splendid photographs.

REPORT OF THE LIBRARIAN FOR 1931

Ann Arbor, Michigan, December 15, 1931.

I have the honor to present herewith the first report of the Librarian of the
Wilson Ornithological Club at the end of the first year of the library’s existence.

Housing. The library is housed in a section of the ornithological library
of the Museum of Zoology in the new University Museums Building in Ann Arbor.
It is shelved apart from the ornithological collection and kept as a distinct and
separate entity.

Donors. The Librarian takes pleasure in acknowledging gifts to the Club
library from the following:

Mr. Ralph Beebe, Lincoln Park, Michigan.

Mr. Stuart T. Danforth, Porto Rico.

Mr. Ralph E. DeLury, Ottawa, Canada.

Emergency Conservation Committee, New York City.

Mr. Herbert Friedmann, Washington, D. C.

Mr. Lynds Jones, Oberlin, Ohio.

Mrs. F. H. King, Madison, Wisconsin.

Mr. Frank C. Pellett, Hamilton, Illinois.

Mr. John McB. Robertson, Buena Park, California.

Mr. T. C. Stephens, Sioux City, Iowa.

Mr. O. A. Stevens, Fargo, North Dakota.

Mr. E. h. Sumner, Jr., Berkeley, California.

Mr. J. Van Tyne, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

The gifts total 54 bound volumes and 750 separates, many of which are
reprints.

58

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

Exchanges. With the establishment of the Research Library of the Wilson
Ornithological Club the matter of adding to the facilities of the library by the
deposition in it of exchanges becomes important. There such serials will be
available to all members of the Club. The exchange of the Bulletin for not only
domestic but also foreign journals will be of inestimable scientific value to the
Club in the field of research. In this field the exchanges may quite naturally
become the very backbone of the research library .

Reprinting. The reprinting of out-of-print numbers of the Bulletin is a
matter of great importance to the welfare of the Club, and especially to its library.
A program of reprinting should be worked out which will eventually make avail-
able complete sets of the Bulletin at least from the beginning of the New
Series (1894). This will benefit the Club in many ways. A complete set of the
Bulletins will aid in facilitating exchanges. It will be much easier to secure
a complete set of another society’s publications if we have a complete set of our
own to offer in return. It will also be of service to the members of the society
who are anxious to complete their own sets. There are, doubtless, many mem-
bers of the Club who have lacunae in their own sets which they have long been
waiting to fill. The financial return to the Club from the sale of complete sets
should be a considerable item. It should in itself make the matter of reprinting
most expedient.

Stock. Dr. Lynds Jones has deposited in the University Museums the en-
tire stock of Bulletins beginning with No. 1 (1894), which is a reprint, to Vol.
36, No. 4 (December, 1924), which is the last number now available in Ann
Arbor, the reserve supply from 1925 to date being in Sioux City, Iowa. The
supply of Bulletins is housed in the University Museums Building in the fire-
proof stock room for publications, in dust-proof cases. They are arranged
chronologically and labeled. In the Librarian’s room there is a card file of the
Bulletins where a separate card may be found for each number, indicating the
number of copies available.

The Librarian Jeels that a definite policy should be adopted in regard to the
extent of the supply of Bulletins to be kept on hand. A reserve stock of twenty-
five numbers should be kept, from which numbers may be taken only to form
complete sets. In other words, a number of the Bulletin must be declared to
be unavailable when there are but twenty-five copies on the shelves, unless a
whole set of the Bulletin is being ordered.

I'rice. I he Librarian suggests that a decided increase in the price of back
numbers of the Bulletin be put into effect at once. A minimum price of fifty
cents per number is recommended. Some of the early numbers should be sold
lor not less than one dollar each. I he Librarian will be glad to furnish a list of
such numbeis. It is the custom in many scientific societies to give members of
the society the privilege to purchase their society publications at a twenty per cent
discount. 1 recommend this practice to the W. O. C. The Librarian suggests
that in each issue of the Bulletin a notice be inserted stating what Bulletins
are for sale and the price thereof.

Book Plate. As yet no book plate has been provided by the Club for its
books. This should receive the serious attention of the Club.

Respectfully submitted,

F. P. Allen,

Librarian, Wilson Ornithological Club
and University Museums.

Proceeding

59

Fig. 9. J. M. Shaver
President

Fig. 10. E. L. Moseley
First Vice-President

Fig. 11. J. Van Tyne
Second Vice-President

Fig. 12. L. E. Hicks
Secretary

60

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

Proceedings

61

REPORT OF THE SECRETARY FOR 1931*

Nashville, Tennessee, December 28, 1931.

To the Officers and Members oj the Wilson Ornithological Club:

During the past year, the intensive campaign for new members was continued
with even more energy than in 1930, but with results that were not up to the
high mark of last year. Altogether about 5,000 circular letters and 2,000 personal
letters were sent out from the Secretary’s office with only 162 new members
secured as compared with 241 last year. These new members were distributed
among the different classes as follows: Sustaining, 5; Active, 18; Associate, 139.

Although this seems to be a very small per cent of success in solicitation, it should
be kept in mind that many of these were follow-up letters after a previous un-
successful solicitation in 1930, and that many of the letters went to people con-
nected with schools and museums who did not subscribe personally but sent in
subscriptions in the name of the school or museum. For instance, all of the mem-
bers of the Cooper Ornithological Club were re-solicited this year. Shortly after-
wards there was a noticeable increase in the number of institutional subscribers
from California. In considering this report, it is necessary to remember also the
unusual financial conditions of 1931.

At present, the Club has the following paid-up memberships: Honorary

M embers, 7; Life Members, 7t; Sustaining Members, 57; Active Members, 214;
Associate Members, 461; total, 744. Last year the total membership was 776
(which erroneously included eleven members who had earlier resigned). So in
spite of the 150 new members secured this year, the Club has suffered a net loss
of 24 members distributed as follows: Honorary Members, 0; Life Member'S,' 0;

Sustaining Members, 0; Active Members, 10; Associate Members, 14.

Although all records were checked in 1930 by the Editor, Secretary, and
Treasurer, it was discovered this year that eleven people were still on the Secre-
tary’s roll, that had been delinquent for their dues for from one to three years.
These names have been removed and it is now felt that the Secretary’s records
are correct.

At the time of the last annual report, there were 54 members delinquent for
dues. Ten of these members paid and were reinstated while the rest (44) were
dropped from our rolls.

It is with much regret that the list of 1931 delinquent members is announced.
There is a total of 137 members delinquent for 1931 dues. These are distributed
as follows: Sustaining Members, 8: Active Members, 21; Associate Members, 108.

Jesse M. Shaver, Secretary.

* Revised to the end of December, 1931.

|Two of the Life Members are also Honorary Members.

KEY TO GKOUP PHOTOGRAPH. 1, Lynds Jones. 2, Jesse M. Shaver. 3. T. C. Stephens.
4, Mrs. W. H. Edwards. 5, Mrs. A. F. Satterthwait. 6. Mrs. Lynds Jones. 7, A. W. Meyer.

8. Mrs. W. S. Randall. 9, H. C. Bryant. 10, Josselyn Van Tyne. 11, Mrs. H. .1. Taylor. 12, S.
Charles Kendeigh. 13, W. F. Kubichck. 14, Fannye Cook. 15. Frank Carroll. 16, G. B. Clay-
comb. 17, Charles V. Robinette. 18, T. Gilbert Pearson. 19, Mi''. G. B. Claycomb. 20, Glenn
W. Bell. 21, Paul A. Stewart. 22, Albert Ganier. 23. E. L. Moseley. 24, Paul R. Elliott.

25, Lony Strabala. 26, Kenneth Edwards. 27, J. Paul Visschcr. 28, W. H. Over. 29, O. P.

Allert. 30, W. D. Johnson. 31, Chas. J. Spiker. 32, Duncan McIntosh. 33, F. A. Harris. 34,
Richard FI. Wade. 35, Ethel B. Finster. 36, Mrs. O. P. Allert. Photographs of this group, 8x10
inches, may be secured at SI each from John N. Teunisson, 1525 Eighth Street, New Orleans, La.

62

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

REPORT OF THE TREASURER FOR 1931
From December 19, 1930 to December 21, 1931

Receipts for 1931

December 19, 1930, Balance on hand as per last report $ 675.15

The following was collected from members and subscribers:

6 Associate Members for 1930 •$ 9.00

3 Active Members for 1930 7.50

388 Associate Members for 1931 582.00

197 Active Members for 1931 492.50

55 Sustaining Members for 1931 275.00

93 Associate Members for 1932 139.50

44 Active Members for 1932 110.00

14 Sustaining Members for 1932 70.00

5 Associate Members for 1933 7.50

1 Active Member for 1933 2.50

From membership dues 1,695.50

99 Subscribers for 1931... 148.50

35 Subscribers for 1932 52.50

1 Active Subscriber for 1931 2.50

13 Foreign Subscribers 24.06

5 Fractional Subscriptions 5.79

From subscriptions 233.35

Received for back numbers sold 23.00

Received various contributions 7.10

Received from Mrs. H. J. Taylor 50.00

Received Trust refund 1.00

Received membership list sold 1.00

Miscellaneous receipts 82.10

Total receipts

$2,686.10

Proceedings 63

Disbursements for 1931
(Condensed Form)

Printing four issues of the Bulletin .$1,366.50

Other expenses in Editor’s office 135.85

Halftones, engravings, cuts, etc 143.49

Publication costs $1,645.84

Expense in Secretary’s office 249.64

Expense in Treasurer’s office - 41.73

Dr. Stephens for excess remittance 10.00

Five fractional subscription refunds 5.75

Arizona University check returned 1.50

Exchange on foreign checks .63

Running expenses 309.25

(A complete itemized list of expenses is attached)

Total disbursements $1,955.09

December 21, 1931, Balance on hand 731.01

Total $2,686.10

Endowment Fund

December 19, 1930, Balance on hand in Endowment Fund $888.35

(See last annual report)

Received interest on Endowment Fund at 4% 35.88

(Savings department of City State Bank, Ogden, Iowa)

December 21, 1931, Balance on hand in Endowment Fund $924.23

Respectfully submitted,

(Signed) W. M. Rosene, Treasurer.

64

The Wilson Bulletin — March, 1932

Register of the Attendance at the New Orleans Meeting

From Alabama: Thomas S. van Aller, Mobile; Kenneth Edwards, Mrs.

W. H. Edwards, and Duncan McIntosh, Fairhope; P. H. Lodier, Newbie; H. E.
Wheeler, Birmingham. From California: Mrs. H. ,). Taylor, Berkeley. From

District of Columbia: H. C. Bryant, Washington. From Florida: Grace E.

Baker, Tallahassee; Mr. and Mrs .C. C. Goff, Leesburg; T. R. Robinson, Ter-
raleia; C. H. Willoughby, Gainsville. From Georgia: Glenn W. Bell, Mount

Berry; Mrs. E. F. B. Cobb, Atlanta; Mr. and Mrs. Marvin C. Quillian, Macon.
From Illinois: Victor E. Shelford, Urbana. From Indiana: W. S. Blatchley,
Indianapolis; M. S. Markle, Richmond. From Iowa: Mr. and Mrs. 0. P. Allert,
McGregor; F. A. Harris and Chas. J. Spiker, New Hampton; Mr. and Mrs. W. F.
Kubichek, and Mr. and Mrs. A. W. Meyer, Cedar Rapids; T. C. Stephens, Sioux
City. From New Orleans: Stanley C. Arthur, Mrs. E. A. Bechtel, Frank M.

Carroll, Miner B. Conger, James W. Edwards, A. W. Harrison, E. S. Hopkins,
Harnett T. Kane, William Letter, Buford M. Meyers, Jr., Richard H. Wade. From
Louisiana outside of New Orleans: H. J. Chattertcn, Mr. and Mrs. G. B. Clay-

comb, Lafayette; Mildred Dunn, K. S. Foote, J. R. Fowler, Baton Rouge; and
W. D. Johnson, and Grace Sharp, Shreveport. From Massachusetts: Mabel E.
Bowman, Cohasset. From Michigan: Josselyn Van Tyne, Ann Arbor. From

Mississippi: Fannye A. Cook, Crystal Springs; P. E. Collom, McComb; Mr. and

Mrs. John M. Frazier, Hattiesburg. From Missouri: Louise Becker, and Helen

Dykeman, St. Louis; Mr. and Mrs. A. F. Satterthwait, Webster Groves. From
New York: Mrs. Charles Noel Edge, Peter Edge, and T. Gilbert Pearson, New

York City. From Nebraska: Robert H. Wolcott, Lincoln. From North Caro-
lina: Ethel B. Finster, Ashville; A. Shaftesbury, Greensboro; Mr. and Mrs.

J. M. Vallentine, Chapel Hill. From Ohio: Mary C. Crone, S. Charles Kendeigh,

J. Paul Visscher, Cleveland; Lawrence E. Hicks, and Robert H. McCormick,
Columbus; Dr. and Mrs. Lynds Jones, Oberlin; C. Mae McAdow, Peebles; E. L.
Moseley, Bowling Green; William A. Rice, Delaware; Paul A. Stewart, and Lony
B. Strabala, Leetonia; Allan H. Watkins, Chardon. From Oklahoma: Mrs.

W. S. Randall, Oklahoma City; j. L. Selb, Tahlequah. From South Dakota:
W. H. Over, Vermillion. From Tennessee: Paul R. Elliott, Richard City; A. F.

Ganier, and Jesse M. Shaver, Nashville. From Texas: Don 0. Baird, Huntsville;

Homer R. Bolen, and Otto Mackensen, Austin; J. J. Carroll, Houston; R. T. Hart-
ley, Beaumont. From Wisconsin: L. J. Cole, and R. J. Barlen, Madison.

Summary of Attendance

Alabama, 6; California, 1: District of Columbia, 1; Florida, 5: Georgia, 4;
Illinois, 1; Indiana, 2: Iowa, 9; Louisiana (outside of New Orleans), 8; New
Orleans, 11; Massachusetts, 1; Michigan, 1: Mississippi, 4; Missouri, 4; Nebraska,
1; New York, 3; North Carolina, 4; Ohio, 13; Oklahoma, 2; South Dakota, 1:
Tennessee, 3; Texas, 5; Wisconsin, 2. Total attendance, 92. Total outside of
New Orleans, 81. Number at dinner, 35.

TO OUR CONTRIBUTORS

Our members are urged to submit articles for publication in the Bulletin.
Short items are desired for the department of General Notes, as well as longer
contributions, especially pertaining to life-history, migration, ecology, behavior,
song, economic ornithology, field equipment and methods, etc. Local faunal lists
are also desired, but they should be annotated, at least briefly, and should be
based upon sufficient study to be reasonably complete. Authors are asked to
include the common name, the scientific name (from the A. 0. U. check-list), and
annotations, and they should be arranged in this order. The annotations should
include explicit data concerning unusual species. Omit serial numbering.

The Manuscript. The manuscript, or copy, should be prepared with due regard
for literary style, correct spelling and punctuation. Use sheets of paper of good
quality and of letter size (8 1/2 x 11 inches) ; write on one side only, and leave
wide margins, using double spacing and a reasonably fresh, black ribbon.

The title should be carefully constructed so as to indicate most clearly the
nature of the subject matter of the contribution. Where the paper deals with a
single species it is desirable to include in the title both the common and the
scientific names, or, to include the scientific name in the introductory paragraph.
Contributors are requested to mark at the top of the first page of the manuscript
the number of words contained. This will save the editor’s time and will be
appreciated.

Manuscripts intended for publication in any particular issue should be in the
hands of the editor sixty to ninety days prior to the date of publication.

Illustrations. To reproduce well prints should have good contrast with detail.
In sending prints the author should attach to each one an adequate description
or legend.

Bibliography. The scientific value of some contributions is enhanced by an
accompanying list of works cited. Such citations should be complete, giving
author’s name, full title of the paper, both the year and volume of the periodical,
and pages, first and last.

Proof. Galley proof will be regularly submitted to authors. Page proofs will
be submitted only on request. Proof of notes and short articles will not be sub-
mitted unless requested. All proofs must be returned within four days. Expensive
changes in copy after the type has been set must be charged to the author.

Separates. The Club is unable, under present financial conditions, to furnish
reprints to authors gratis. Arrangements will be made, however, for such reprints
to be obtained at practically cost. The cost will vary somewhat with the nature
of the composition, but will depend mainly upon the number of pages. A scale of
rates is appended which will serve as a guide to the approximate printer’s costs.

If a blank page is left in, the folding this may be used for a title page, which
will be set and printed at the rate indicated. If a complete cover with printed
title page is desired it may be obtained at the rate shown in the last column.
All orders for separates must accompany the returned galley proof upon blanks
provided. Orders cannot be taken after the forms have been taken down.

Copies

2

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

Cover

50

$1.25

$2.00

$3.50

$4.75

$6.00

$7.75

$8.50

$9.75

$11.00

$12.25

$13.50

$2.50

100

1.50

2.25

3.75

5.00

6.25

7.50

8.75

10.00

11.25

12.50

13.75

2.75

200

2.00

2.76

4.25

5.50

6.75

8.00

9.25

10.50

11.75

13.00

14.25

3.00

300

2.75

3.50

6.00

6.25

7.50

8.75

10.00

11.25

12.50

13.75

15.00

4.00

400

..._ 3.25

4.00

5.50

6.75

8.00

9.25

10.50

11.75

13.00

14.25

15.50

5.00

500

3.75

4.50

6.00

7.25

8.50

9.75

11.00

12.25

13.50

14.75

16.00

6.00

Repaging — 25c per page extra. Title Page — $1.25.

ffl»mninniim«mm»Mintimii»iiiiiii»»»iimim»iiiinimniinninniiiMimiininiiinimiiinimnmpr]

Annual Meetings of the Wilson Ornithological Club

Retiring

1914 — Chicago. February 5. President

Chicago Academy of Sciences.

1914— Chicago. December 29-30.

New Morrison Hotel T. C. Stephens

1915 — Columbus. December 28-29.

With the A. A. A. S T. C. Stephens

1916 — Chicago December 27-28.

New Morrison Hotel T. C. Stephens

1917 — Pittsburgh. January 1-2, 1918.

With the A. A. A. S W. F. Henninger

1918 — No meeting on account of the

exigencies of war M. II. Swenk

1919 — St. Louis. December 29-30.

With the A. A. A. S M. H. Swenk

1 920 — Chicago. December 27-28.

With the A. A. A. S R. M. Strong

1921 — Chicago. December 26-27.

The Field Museum R. M. Strong

1922 — Chicago. October 26 T. L. Hankinson

1923 — Cincinnati. Dec. 31, 1923-Jan. 1, 1924.

With the A. A. A. S „T. L. Hankinson

1924 — Nashville. November 28-29-30.

Peabody College A. F. Ganier

1925 — Kansas City. December 28-29.

With the A. A. A. S A. F. Ganier

1926 — Chicago. November 26-27.

Chicago Academy of Sciences... .A. F. Ganier

1927 — Nashville. Dec. 30, 1927-Jan. 1, 1928.

With the A. A. A. S Lynds Jones

1928 — Ann Arbor. Nov. 31-Dec. 1, 1928.

Museum of Zoology Lynds Jones

1929 — Des Moines. December 27-28.

With the A. A. A. S Lynds Jones

1930 — Cleveland. December 29-30.

With the A. A. A. S J. W. Stack

1931 — New Orleans. December 28-29.

With the A. A. A. S , J. W. Stack

jun

Vol. XLIV

JUNE, 1932

No. 2

THE

WILSON BULLLIIN

A Magazine of Field Ornithology

Published by the

WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB

at

SIOUX CITY, IOWA

Entered as Second-class Mail Matter, July 13, 1916, at the Postoffiee at
Sioux City, Iowa, under Act of March 3, 1879.

CONTENTS

Winter Starling Roosts of Washington

By E. R. Kalmbach

65-75

Curvature of Wing and Flapping Flight

By William Brewster Taber, Jr.

75-78

Harlan’s Hawk

By Norman A. Wood

78-87

Snakes Vs. Birds: Birds Vs. Snakes

By J. E. Guthrie

88-113

Editorial

114

General Notes

115-119

Ornithological Literature

119-128

THE WILSON BULLETIN

Published quarterly, in March, June, September, and December, as the official
organ of the Wilson Ornithological Club, at Sioux City, Iowa.

The current issue of the Wilson Bulletin is printed by the Verstegen Printing
Company, Sioux City, Iowa.

The Wilson Bulletin is sent to all members not in arrears for dues. The
subscription price is $1.50 a year, invariably in advance, in the United States.
Outside of the United States the subscription rate is $1.75. New subscriptions,
change of address, and applications for membership should be addressed to the
Secretary.

All articles and communications for publication, books and publications for
notice, and exchanges, should be addressed to the Editor.

Claims for lost and undelivered copies of the magazine may be addressed to
the Editor.

THE WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB

Founded December 3, 1888. Named after Alexander Wilson, the first American
ornithologist, and called the “Father of American Ornithology.”

The officers for the current year are:

President — Prof. J. M. Shaver, George Peabody College for Teachers, Nash-
ville, Tenn.

First Vice-President — Prof. E. L. Moseley, State Teachers College, Bowling
Green, Ohio.

Second Vice-President — Dr. Josselyn Van Tyne, Museum of Zoology, Ann
Arbor, Mich.

Treasurer — Mr. W. M. Rosene, City State Bank, Ogden, Iowa.

Secretary — Mr. Lawrence E. Hicks, Botany Dept., 0. S. U., Columbus, Ohio.
Editor — T. C. Stephens, Morningside College, Sioux City, Iowa.

The membership dues are — Sustaining membership, $5.00; active membership,
$2.50; associate membership, $1.50 per year.

The following societies are affiliated organizations:

The Nebraska Ornithologists’ Union.

The Iowa Ornithologists’ Union.

The Kentucky Ornithological Society.

The Tennessee Ornithological Society.

THE WILSON BULLETIN

A QUARTERLY MAGAZINE OF ORNITHOLOGY
Published by the Wilson Ornithological Club

Vol. XLIV JUNE, 1932 No. 2

Yol. XXXIX (New Series) Whole Number 159

WINTER STARLING ROOSTS OF WASHINGTON

BY E. R. KALMBACH

Tbe winter Starlings of Washington are in no wise different from
other Starlings. They are as typically Starlings as the cosmopolitan
citizenry of the National Capital is American. They have all the indi-
vidual vices, much of the proletarian spirit and doubtless also some of
the less frequently mentioned virtues of Starlings living elsewhere.
Yet, withal, they have distinction. The mere choice of the National
Lapital as their winter domicile assures them that.

Here their nocturnal squeals and chatterings reach the ears of the
mighty and here also at times the voices of the mighty rise in protest.
Here the shopper and the shop owner; the pedestrian and autoist; the
bird hater and even bird lover periodically join the chorus of damna-
tion. Even the staid ranks of profound ornithologists have echoed the
song of lament.

It is in such an unsympathetic setting that tbe appended notes on
Starling behavior have their origin. They are devoted in general to
the subject of roosting activities and in origin are more or less of a
by-product of a few experiments in control. In point of time they
deal largely with tbe happenings of tbe past five years.

Winter Starlings made their first appearance in Washington in
the fall of 1914, when a few score used trees near the Bureau of
Fisheries as a rendezvous. At that time they were objects merely of
ornithological interest and made no impression on the lay mind except
as attention was called to their presence. On the advent of colder
weather these birds either left the city for points south or passed tbe
nights in more protected and less conspicuous places, as the interiors
of church towers or building ventilators. It was not until about 1922
or 1923 that noticeable numbers began to frequent the eaves and win-
dow ledges of buildings on down-town streets and formed a nucleus
of what in following years developed into a roost of many thousands.

By January, 1926, the gathering bad reached such proportions
that local merchants complained of its presence, and, in a limited way,

66

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

experiments were started to alleviate the condition. These early ex-
periments, involving frightening measures, were followed by attempts
to trap the birds, then to poison, and finally experimental work was
done with toxic gas on small mixed roosts of Starlings and English
Sparrows. The rather high degree of failure, tempered with indifferent
success in a few of the experiments, carried with it the conviction that
there still was much to learn of Starling behavior that might have a
bearing on the general problem of Starling control where needed. Of
primary importance was the need of a better understanding of Starling
migration or seasonal drift in order that the effect of a winter reduc-
tion of numbers at any one point might better be appraised. This led
to banding operations.

The first of these attempts to band winter Starlings in Washington
was directed at a group roosting in two ventilators on top of the Post
Office Department Building on Pennsylvania Avenue. There were
four of these ventilators, essentially the same in construction. Star-
lings, however, occupied only two, these being the ones from which
a steady flow of warm air emerged throughout the night, and where
the birds, protected from rain and snow by the broad, overlapping
shutters, enjoyed the advantages of almost human comforts. Fully
a thousand birds resorted to each of these ventilators during the height
of their occupancy in the winter of 1927-28. On December 21, 1927,
a party of four, consisting of C. C. Sperry, F. M. Uhler, F. C. Lincoln,
and the writer visited these ventilators and succeeded in capturing a
single Starling. There was no method of reaching the birds from the
inside and the diffused light of the city made our approach from with-
out so evident that most of the flock took wing at the start of opera-
tions. This single experience was sufficient and the scene of operations
was promptly changed to the tower of the First Presbyterian Church
on John Marshall Place where, during this same winter, as many as
2600 Starlings repaired nightly. This tower had been used by Starlings
for several years and by pigeons for many more. The former were
contributing rapidly to the supply of guano which on some landings
was eight to ten inches deep. About a quart of this material yielded
the remains of no less than 105 specifically different food items of the
Starlings. More than half of these were animal in origin and the
varied assortment gave indication of the wide daily rangings of this
flock up and down the Potomac and throughout neighboring Maryland
and Virginia.

Banding was begun at this location on the night of January 4,
1928, when 317 were banded. An even thousand were tagged on Janu-

Winter Starling Roosts of Washington

67

ary 14 and another thousand on February 21. The peak of operations
was reached on the night of March 2 with the banding of 1,241, and
the season closed on March 23 with 559, making a total of 4,118 for
the winter. In the following winter (1928-29) 398 additional Star-
lings were caught and handed in the tower of the Metropolitan Me-

Fig. 14. Map showing the 120 returns from 4,516 Starlings handed in Wash-
ington in the winters of 1927-28 and 1928-29. Seventy birds were recovered at
points within the shaded circle, having a radius of twenty miles from the point of
banding. The most distant return (Cornwall, Ontario) is about 480 miles dis-
tant from Washington.

morial M. E. Church, situated only a half block from the scene of the
earlier banding. In the course of this work a number of Washington
ornithologists other than those mentioned, cooperated.

At the time of this writing (March, 1931) 120, or about 2.6 per
cent of the total number of Starlings handed in these two winters

68

The Wilson Bulletin^ — June, 1932

(4516) have been recorded as returns. (See Fig. 14). Seventy of
these returns have been recorded from points less than twenty miles
distant from the point of handing. Of these seventy essentially local
returns, twenty-eight were recorded during subsequent breeding seasons
and for that reason may be looked upon as resident birds. A portion
also of the other forty-two local returns, birds captured or killed dur-
ing winter months, probably were local breeders. Arguing from these
admittedly meager data, it may be contended that something more than
23 per cent of the wintering Starlings of Washington were essentially
resident birds. For that reason a reduction in the number of winter
Starlings at Washington may be expected to exert a certain influence
on the local breeding population but, of the birds eliminated, probably
more than half would be northern breeders. Wallingford, Vt., Cape
Vincent, N. Y., and Cornwall and Elgin, Ontario, are the most northerly
points of return among the birds banded. The few records of return
noted in Fig. 14 at points to the south of Washington are of birds
captured during subsequent winters and indicate possibly that those
individuals had merely gone on past Washington in their southern
drift toward warmer climes.

The Starlings in the first of the towers visited, which is an old
one, occupied various ledges and nooks in the walls as well as the cross
braces. At a certain level there was a series of box-like cavities in
the wall construction, each about two feet wide, three feet deep, and
six inches high. These were filled with Starlings for their entire depth
with scarcely room for another, and. despite an outdoor temperature
of well below freezing, I am confident a thermometer placed among
these birds would have registered a temperature close to that of their
own bodies. We ourselves were able to keep perfectly comfortable,
even though working bare-handed on cold nights, by frequently delving
arms’ length into one of these cavities to drag forth a double handful
of Starlings. This habit of dense crowding is quite different from that
displayed by Starlings when roosting in trees or on the exterior of
some buildings where there is ample room. In such locations the
birds appear to resent close association and aim to keep between each
other a space equal to at least the width of a bird. (Fig. 15). The
intrusion of another individual into a line at such a gathering is re-
sisted. but if the newcomer is successful in establishing itself Lhere
foil ows a slight shifting of birds on each side in an attempt to equalize
and keep at a maximum the interval between each.

Each successive night of handing at the church tower disclosed a
certain number of “repeats" from our earlier bandings. It was also

Winter Starling Roosts of Washington

69

Fig. 15. A count made from the negative of this picture reveals about 1,000
Starlings in the top of this sycamore tree on Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington.
The photograph was taken before sunrise.

h ig. 16. “Gayety is the keynote of this assemblage of approximately 3,000
Starlings on the lop of a burlesque theatre in Washington.

Photographs by E. R. Kalmbach.

70

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

apparent that these operations were causing a decrease in the total
population of the tower as we had to go to higher and higher levels to
obtain the birds. It was not until the last banding of the first year
(March 23, 1928) that we were able to capture practically every bird
in the tower. On that evening it was necessary to climb to the very
top of the cupola to obtain the last two hundred birds. Among these
last birds there was not a single “ repeat ” although for that entire
evening “repeats” averaged close to a fifth of the birds handled. Even
previous to this night it had been noted that there was a tendency for
the numbers on the “repeats” to be bunched in a fairly close sequence,
much in the order in which they were originally handed. A group of
fifty birds removed from one cavity might have six or eight “repeats”
and the numbers of these repeats often were in close proximity in the
numerical series, indicating, it was thought at that time, that each in-
dividual bird had returned to the same spot in the tower that it had
occupied at the time it was banded. The absence of “repeats” among,
the last two hundred birds obtained from the peak of the cupola, which
had not been visited before, strengthened this belief.

With the decrease in the number of birds in this tower, came an
approximately corresponding increase in the number of Starlings using
the ledges beneath the eaves and porticos of the former Land Office
and the Patent Office buildings about one-fourth mile to the north-
west. A few hundred also repaired to the tall spire of the Metropoli-
tan M. E. Church just a half block to the south. This latter tower was
the scene of the banding operations during the following winter
(1928-29) when, after two “expeditions” on which 398 were banded,
it also became unattractive to the birds. Today, three or four years
after these operations, the two towers mentioned remain nearly free of
Starlings, despite the fact that they are just as accessible as they ever
were and that the local Starling population of Washington still is
great.

Although the treatment given the birds when being banded was a
bit rough at times, it was not more than the rugged Starling could
ordinarily withstand. They were gathered in gunny sacks in lots of
forty or fifty, brought down to a lower level, inspected for bands pre-
viously placed, banded and then released by tossing them out of a
window. This compelled the birds to seek other more peaceful spots
of repose for the rest of the night. Inspection of the premises by day
on several occasions revealed only one dead Starling that had been
handled on the previous night. There certainly was no great mortality.
The summary ejection of the birds from the tower with the resultant

Winter Starling Roosts of Washington

71

necessity on their part of finding new nightly abodes appeared to be
the impelling factor that caused the desertion of these roosts. In one
of the two towers a carillon of bells, on the framework of which many
of the birds roosted, was in no sense a disturbing factor as not a bird
was seen to leave the tower while Christmas carols and glad tidings of
the new year were being tolled.

After the center of Washington’s Starling population had moved
to the old Land Office Building late in the winter of 1927-28, observa-
tions and certain control experimental work shifted to that scene. Here
the birds occupied protected ledges beneath the eaves and on the
frames of the upper story windows. The capital of every Corinthian
column also had its quota and the regular dispersal of the birds in
measured spaces permitted easy estimation of numbers. During the
peak of occupancy in the winter of 1929-30, this building harbored
nightly about 4,200 Starlings. Here further and more definite evidence
of the attachment shown by individual Starlings for the same roosting
spot was revealed. It came to light in connection with an experimental
demonstration of a scheme to reduce the nuisance of roosting Starlings
by eliminating the roosting ledges. The tops of the upper story win-
dows across the entire south side of the old Land Office Building
were occupied, each with its ten to fifteen birds. One of these roost-
ing sites was eliminated by placing on the ledge a strip of wood having
an end cross section of a right triangle and a length equal to the width
of the window. In this manner an inclined surface sloping outward
and downward at an angle of 45° from the horizontal displaced the
flat ledge about three inches wide. On this incline the birds could not,
or at least did not roost. This strip was placed in position on March
14, 1928, where it remained until the night of the 16th, when it was
dislodged by the wind. On the night of the 17th every window of the
upper story had its regular quota of birds in orderly array except
the one on which the strip had formerly rested. This ledge remained
absolutely free of Starlings notwithstanding the fact that now it was
just as suitable as any other ledge and that there were mad scrambles
for lodging space on neighboring windows scarcely eight feet away.
On the night of the 18th one bird timidly occupied the extreme end of
the vacated ledge and on following nights it was gradually repopulated.

At about the same time a somewhat similar experience was had
with Starlings occupying a portico at the opposite end of this build-
ing. An automatic acetylene flash gun was fired in this portico for
several consecutive nights causing a portion of the birds to seek quieter
lodgings. The results were not as successful as hoped for and the

72

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

firing was stopped. The birds, however, did not return to the vacated
ledges immediately and it was only after a period of several days that
the area was slowly reoccupied.

A more recent happening emphasizes further the fact that once
a Starling has been driven from a roosting spot and has located itself
at some other point there is no urge to return to its earlier roost unless
driven from its new abode. It occurred at the scene of this same cen-
ter of Starling population, which had grown to considerable propor-
tions and occupied not only all four sides of the old Land Office
Building but also parts of the Patent Office to the north. On the 9th
of February, 1931, a crew of eight men, four to each building, started
a crusade against the roosting birds. Cat-o-nine tail whips of short
poles with several strands of llexible wire attached were used to lash
the ledges beneath the eaves. The men operated from the roof of the
building. This was repeated on a second night and the work was
supplemented by some of the men using “bean shooters”, with small
stones as projectiles, to dislodge birds that could not be reached with
the whips. By the third night the roost was much reduced in size and
the whips were abandoned entirely for the sling shots. The crew also
was reduced to two men for each building. By the fourth night
practically all the birds had left and two men leisurely patrolling
from the sidewalk kept the few more persistent birds on the move.

Since then, these two buildings, which together harbored prob-
ably in excess of 6,000 birds, have been free of Starlings. It is true
a single man goes through the perfunctory procedure of patrol but it
is not needed. There is a complete avoidance of the building on the
part of the birds. Now and then a small group will fly toward it as if
to alight on one of the ledges; they may even perch for a moment or
two but it is not for long. As far as these two buildings are concerned
the relief from the Starlings has been complete. Yet immediately
across the street an electric sign, gaily occupied by the birds, afforded
lodging for about 3,000 (Fig. 16), a few of which showed any interest
in or inclination to return to their old ledges scarcely 100 feet away.
The rest of the evicted tenants found other spots in down-town Wash-
ington with a noticeable drift westward along F and G Streets. Even
the District Building about a half mile away, from which the Starlings
departed about a year previous in response to frightening measures,
again had a substantial delegation. Each individual Starling could
be expected to return to its own newly found nook or cranny and
the old stands at the Patent Oil ice, the old Land Office Building, as
well as at the church towers previously mentioned will likely remain

Winter Starling Roosts of Washington

73

unoccupied as long as the birds are not further disturbed at their new
locations.

The affinity of Starlings for individual roosting spots seems to
account for the sequence of events occurring at roosts in the course of
a single winter, or even a series of winters, if we assume there to be a
certain homing instinct lasting from one season to another. A group
of adult birds, returning to old haunts, might well be expected to decoy
the young of the previous breeding season and in that manner a winter
roost might be maintained at the same location for a series of years.

The idea of a particular roosting spot for each individual bird is,

I find, at variance with the popular conception of large Starling roosts.
To the casual observer these congregations convey the impression of
a mad scramble to find roosting spots. There is, in fact, a scramble
but behind it all there exists, I believe, the impelling desire of each
bird to find its own particular location. Admittedly there is confusion,
especially when there are new arrivals at the roost or when the roosting
birds have been disturbed by man or other causes. But, all in all,
these nightly gatherings may be little more of a riot than what one
sees at any football game when each of 50,000 or more spectators is
attempting to plant himself in his own reserved seat before the start
of the game.

There is need for more direct and positive evidence of the trait
these observations have indicated largely in a circumstantial way.
This could be obtained by observing, night after night, conspicuously
marked birds. Just how one would succeed in capturing and marking
Starlings at one of the open roosts where they could he watched from
day to day, without unduly disturbing the group I cannot say. Star-
lings are remarkably uniform in appearance but I hope sometime to
have the good fortune to locate one or more individuals that are dis-
tinguishable so that their movements may be readily detected.

Despite the constancy with which Starlings return night after
night to an established abode, motives bordering either on fickleness or
an astute sense of danger at times seem to govern their movements
when they decide to vacate. The occupancy of a new roost then may
take on the aspect of a deliberate and willful avoidance of their former
rendezvous. An incident that well illustrates such a case occurred
within recent years in a nearby community in Virginia. A mixed
flock of English Sparrows and Starlings roosted, to the great distress
of the owner of the property, in the ivy covering the brick walls of a
large and stately dwelling. A plea for some relief led to an experi-
ment in the use of calcium cyanide dust as a fumigant. This was

74

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

fairly successful and the roost was materially reduced in size but not
eliminated. Several dozen birds still remained but, during the days
following, these also gradually vacated the premises and sought other
roosting places. For the remainder of that season and in subsequent
years these ivy covered walls harbored neither English Sparrows nor
Starlings, though all essential features that originally attracted the
birds still remained.

Compared with the drastic action taken without success against
some bird roosts, our activities against the Starlings roosting in the
tower of the First Presbyterian Church in Washington were mild and
inoffensive. Yet five nights of handing at widely scattered dates so
offended Starling sensibilities that they all left and few ever returned.
Even more decisive was the manner which the Starlings vacated the
ventilators on the Post Office Building. One night's visit of a banding
party seemed sufficient to cause a rapid decrease in numbers on fol-
lowing nights until the roost was utterly forsaken.

A similar reaction has been noted with other species. I have
known Crows to vacate enormous roosts apparently through the loss
of a comparatively few birds through poisoning. Red-winged Black-
birds and Boat-tailed Grackles react similarly in their feeding areas.
Stoddard and Handley seldom found individual Chimney Swifts return-
ing to the chimney in which they had been collected, and Dr. A. K.
Fisher relates that some years ago a little persecution of English Spar-
rows at Governor Pinchot's home in Milford, Pa., resulted in the birds
abandoning the ivy covered walls throughout ensuing years although
the barns a few hundred yards distant still harbored them.

The only thoughts I have to offer on such experiences are the
following: There seems to be no dearth of roosting facilities that are

acceptable to the birds. Neither are there any inseparable ties or
affinities to draw birds back to a roost once it has been definitely
vacated and the birds established elsewhere. As I look hack, however,
over many varied experiences with bird roosts I am unable to explain
why, on some occasions the most energetic and persistent efforts at
roost eradication fail miserably and on others, little more than a
suggestion to move meets with a favorable response. The uncanny
ability to detect conditions that spell real danger, especially on the
part of Starlings, blackbirds, and Crows, is to me another unexplained
trait that often comes to light in problems of economic ornithology.
However often it occurs and to whatever extent it may frustrate or
alter well laid plans for control, 1 never fail to marvel at it. After

Curvature of Wing and Flapping Flight

75

all it is such non-predictable reactions as these that add so much to the
interest of economic ornithology and convince us that however exact
our scientific findings may he we can not expect the actions of living
birds to conform to formulae.

U. S. Biological Survey,

Washington, D. C.

CURVATURE OF WING AND FLAPPING FLIGHT

BY WILLIAM BREWSTER TABER, JR.

In the last issue of the Wilson Bulletin (XLIV, 1932, pp. 19-22)
my paper on “’Curvature of Wing and Soaring Flight” gives in detail
the explanation of the effect of the curvature of the wing and how the
air currents striking the under wing surface are deflected, thus causing
an upward lift and a thrust forward, in this way supplying the neces-
sary power for soaring flight. In making this explanation clear it
was necessary to resort to a velocity diagram involving technical terms.
So as to avoid repetition here I will ask the interested reader to ac-
quaint himself with the technical terms and their meanings as given
in this previous paper.

In figure 17, upper diagram, I have represented by the heavy
curved line CD the cross section of a wing of a bird flying to the
left in a horizontal direction as indicated by the arrow above the dia-
gram. We will consider in this case that the bird is flying in motion-
less air and that the wing is flapping straight downward. By bringing
the wing straight downward the same effect is produced upon the wing
as if the wing were held motionless and an air current were blowing
straight upward against it. (Here let me say that to understand this
problem it is essential to keep constantly in mind that the velocity
lines represent the directions and velocities of air currents in relation
to the wing, and not to the body or any other part of the bird or to
an observer standing on the ground ) . The line BC represents this
upward air current, the arrow on the line showing the direction, and
the length of the line representing the velocity of this air current.
Since the bird is flying horizontally to the left, the line AB has been
drawn representing the current of air passing by the wing to the right.
The resultant of the two components AB and BC is AC. In other
words, the combined effects upon the wing of the two air currents,
AB due to the motion of the bird to the left, and BC due to the motion
of the wing downward, is equivalent to a single current blowing upon
the wing in the direction AC and of a velocity proportional to the

76

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

length of AC. In an ideal case this air current will just slide in
under the front edge, swing around along the under surface of the wing
and come off at the back edge in a direction tangential to the wing
at D as shown by the line DF. As this is an ideal case loss of energy
due to friction or eddying need not he considered, hence I have drawn
DF exactly the same length as AC. The vertical component of DF is
DE. Hence the total lifting effect upon the bird wing is proportional
to the length of BC plus DE. Now it can readily be seen that EF is
longer than AB. Since EF is longer than AB, or in other words since
the horizontal velocity of the air current coming off the back edge
of the wing is greater than the horizontal velocity of the air current
coming in under the front edge of the wing there is a thrust forward,
and the thrust forward is proportional to the difference in length of
EF and AB. Consequently by bringing the wing sharply downward
the bird produces a combination of air currents which, since they are
deflected by the curved under surface of the wing, produce an upward
lift which is opposed to the force of gravity, and a forward thrust
which tends to move the bird forward. Whether or not successful
flight is accomplished depends upon a number of other conditions
such as the position of wing in relation to the various actual air cur-
rents, area of wing surface, weight, and other numerous factors.

No doubt by this time the reader has noticed that I have used
a similar diagram and given a similar explanation in this paper on
flapping flight to that which I did on soaring flight. It can readily he
seen that this is perfectly justifiable, for in soaring flight when the
wings are held motionless the bird is dependent upon upward moving
air currents, while in flapping flight the bird obtains the same effect
by bringing its wings sharply downward.

The Advantage oj the Forward Downward Wing Stroke. It is
common knowledge that birds in ordinary flapping flight not only
bring their wings downward, but at the same time swing them forward.
This may he easily observed by watching the slow flapping flight of
any birds as large as, or larger than, the Crow. The rapidity of
wing beat of smaller birds makes this observation upon them very
difficult, or impossible, to the unaided eye. It is a fact that the effec-
tiveness of the wing beat is greatly increased by this forward down-
ward motion. I will, therefore, devote the remainder of this paper
to explaining how this is.

We will now consider that the bird is flying under the same con-
ditions as were given in the first part of this article, that is, to the left
and in a horizontal direction and in still air, but with a forward down-

Curvature of Wing and Flapping Flight

77

ward wing stroke rather than with a straight downward wing stroke.
In figure 17, lower diagram, ACB has been drawn exactly the same as
in the upper diagram. The line BC represents the velocity of the air
current acting on the wing caused by a straight downward wing beat.
Line AB represents the velocity of the air current acting on the wing
caused by the horizontal motion of the bird to tbe left. While AC is
the resultant of these two. Now, in tbe upper diagram, anything that
increases the resultant AC will also increase DF and hence will in-
crease the vertical component DE and the horizontal component EF.
If this increase is accomplished, since DE represents the vertical ve-
locity of the air current coming off the back edge of the wing, the

-« — — —

Fig. 17.

upward lift caused by the wing beat will be increased. Likewise since
EF represents the horizontal velocity of the current of air coming
off the back edge of the wing, the forward thrust will be increased.

Now the question is, will the forward downward wing beat in-
crease tbe resultant AC and thus bring about all the attendant effects
outlined above. In the lower diagram if, instead of drawing the com-
ponent BC straight up as it would have to be in tbe case of a straight
downward wing beat, we draw the corresponding component BX in the
direction as shown, as it would have to be if the wing beat were for-
ward and downward in the direction from X to B , then the resultant
would be AX. It can be seen at a glance that AX is much longer than

78

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

AC , and therefore the resultant air current velocity would be much
greater than in the case of the straight downward wing beat. Since
with the forward downward wing beat the air would slip under the
front edge of the wing with greater velocity it would also come off the
back edge with greater velocity. So the downward horizontal and
velocity components would be proportionately increased, and hence
the lift upward and thrust forward would be increased.

This explains why the forward downward wing stroke is so much
more effective than the straight downward wing stroke, and hence is the
wing motion usually employed in flapping flight.

Greenwood Farm, Kansas, Illinois.

HARLAN’S HAWK"

BY NORMAN A. WOOD

Harlan’s Hawk ( Buteo borealis harlani (Audubon)) has interested
me for many years past, hut more so since I received my first specimen,
taken May 1, 1916, in northeastern North Dakota by H. V. Williams,
who has since that time sent me fifty more from the Red River Valley.
From a small area in northwestern Arkansas I have added eighty more,
and seven others from different states, or 137 in all. The last men-
tioned eighty-seven of these birds are all from the winter home of the
species, and thirty birds have reached me in the flesh. These I have
weighed and measured, and have made photographs of a few, showing
the "peculiar and “characteristic” markings of this fine bird.

Several years ago I noticed the plate of Harlan’s Hawk by Audu
bon, and compared the figures with his description in the Ornithologi
cal Biography, 1831, pp. 442 and 443. He described an adult male
(Birds of America, PI. 86, Fig. 1) as having the tail “rather narrowly
barred with brownish black.” None of our adult birds have barred
tails, so I agree with Taverner1 that this bird was an immature one,
probably a redtail. Audubon does not describe the adult female
(Fig. 2 on same plate) but says that it resembles the male and meas-
ures twenty-two inches, which is about the same as twenty-two females
measured by me in the flesh. I have examined Plate 86 carefully and
find neither male nor female in adult plumage. I believe both are
melanistic redtails. Both have the tails barred and both are entirely
without white spots. Certainly neither one is the type as described by
Sharpe. (In the British Catalogue of Birds, Vol. I, 1874, p. 191).

*Read at the Detroit meeting, 1931, of the American Ornithologists’ Union.

’Bulletin 48, Victoria Memorial Museum, p. 10. Ottawa, 1927.

Harlan’s Hawk

79

Fig. 18. An adult male melanistic Red-tailed Hawk from northwestern
Arkansas. January 14, 1929.

Fig. 19. An adult male melanistic Red-tailed Hawk from northwestern
Arkansas. January 14, 1929. This is the under surface ol the specimen shown
above (Fig. 18).

80

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

No sex is given, but by the measurements and description it is a female
Harlan’s Hawk (not Fig. 2, as painted by Audubon, however). This
type specimen described by Sharpe is very like several in our collec-
tion. Mr. J. H. Fleming has written me that he has examined this type
in the British Museum, and that it is no doubt a (so-called) Harlan’s
Hawk.

We must therefore accept Taverner's theory of a mistake or acci-
dent in the history of the British specimen, but I, for one, can not
accept his theory that harlani and calurus are the same. He regards
harlani as a melanistic redtail. Now, in our Museum collection we
have twenty birds in this phase of plumage ranging from pure brown-
ish black to a mixture of reddish black, but all have no white in the
plumage except at base of feathers on head and nape (Fig. 18 and 19),
while harlani has white spots both above and below, often from bill
to feet (Fig. 20). In melanistic redtails, the adult birds have the red
(more or less) barred tail, while adult Harlan’s Hawks have the tail
streaked and spotted (Fig. 21), never red barred. Immature Harlan’s
Hawks with barred tails have usually the same black and white spotted
plumage (Fig. 22), in strong contrast to the brownish black of im-
mature redtails. Ridgway (Ornithology of Illinois, 1889, pp. 469-
471) gives the best description of Harlan’s Hawk I have found, both
light and dark phases. Of the tails of immature birds he says, “The
black bars are wider and decidedly zigzag and oblique.”2 An im-
mature female taken January 25, 1931, in northwestern Arkansas, has
two new outside rectrices on one side and three on the other, while the
balance are barred with the wavy or U-shaped black bars characteristic
of immature Harlan's Hawks (Fig. 23). There are others also in the
collection that show this change of tail coloration from immature to
adult. In handling these birds in the flesh I noticed a great difference
in the markings of the under side of the wings. Harlan’s Hawks are
more extensively mottled and streaked than redtails. This is also true
of the axillaries, which in harlani are blackish, while in redtails they
are brown (Fig. 24). Figure 25 is a Western Red-tailed Hawk. Fig-
ure 26 is a typical adult male of harlani taken in northwestern
Arkansas on February 26, 1929.

2Ridgway says, ‘‘Plumage of flanks, tibia, and crissum remarkably lengthened
and lax, the latter reaching within two inches of the tip of tail, and the tibial
plumes reaching to the base of the toes.”

1 find (hese characters very constant in most of our specimens.

Harlan’s Hawk

81

Fig. 20. An adult male Harlan’s Hawk taken in southwestern Missouri,
January 22, 1929. Ventral aspect.

Fig. 21. Upper surface of the tail of an adult male Harlan’s Hawk, taken in
northwestern Arkansas, January 1, 1929.

82

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

Fig. 22. Immature female Harlan’s Hawk taken in Benton County, Arkansas,
January 18, 1929. Ventral aspect.

Fig. 23. Upper surface of the tail of an immature female Harlan’s Hawk
taken at Pea Ridge, Arkansas, January 25, 1931.

Harlan’s Hawk

83

Fig. 24. Axillaries of Harlan’s Hawk.

Fig. 25. Axillaries of the Western Red-tailed Hawk.

i ■

84

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

Table I. Comparative Weights and Measurements

Harlani

Bo

real is

Differ-

No. spec.

Lbs. |

No. spec.

Lbs.

ence

Average weight of female hawks

10

3.25

7

2.75

8 oz.

Average weight of male hawks

17

2 25

11

2.00

4 oz.

Inches

Inches |

Average length female hawks

10

22.50

7

22.00

.5 in.

Average length male hawks

14

20.75

5

20.50

.25 in.

Average length female wings

36

16.25

61

15.75

.5 in.

Average length male wings

28

15.50

29

14.75

.75 in.

Average length female tails

37

9.75

61

9.00

.75 in.

Average length male tails

48

9.25

29

9.00

.25 in.

Average length female tarsus

30

3.38

49

3.42

.04 in.

Average length male tarsus

60

3.37

57

3.45

.08 in.

The measurements of length are all from birds in the flesh, all
from birds taken in winter quarters, and all from birds in good con-
dition— some of them being fat. Harlan’s Hawk is somewhat larger
and heavier than the redtail.

Harlan’s Hawk has a light phase; at least, we have seven in our
collection that have much the same pattern of coloration as some red-
tails, but the markings are black and the tails of all adults (6) are
mottled and streaked, in fact typical harlani in that respect. Ridgway
(Birds of Illinois, 1889, p. 469) describes this phase, and Taverner
(Op. cit., PI. Ill, Fig. 6) shows a typical photograph of this phase.
Figure 8 of his same plate is drawn from Audubon’s plate of the
"Black Warrior or Harlan's”, as described. As I have mentioned
before, this bird is a pure immature melanistic redtail. Prof. G. Eif rig
(Wilson Bulletin, Vol. XL, No. 4, 1928, pp. 216-218) has an article
“On the Status of Harlan’s Hawk’ . He gives several reasons for the
belief that Harlan’s Hawk is a distinct subspecies. However, his rea-
sons were based on a very small number of specimens, and some of
them will not hold. He says, first, there is much more white in the
plumage of Harlan’s Hawk than in the redtail. Yes, this is one of its
chief characters. Second, he says there is no brown on breast and
belly in harlani; this does not hold for all specimens. Third, he
says there is an utter lack of barring on the tibial feathers in harlani.
In fact in nearly all of Harlan’s Hawks the tibia is spotted or barred,
often with reddish brown. Fourth, he says the tail of harlani is de-
cidedly different from that of calurus. This I believe is the chief
distinguishing character. In adult of Harlan’s Hawk the tail is spotted
and streaked, but never red-barred. However, there is quite a variation
in the color of the tail, more even than in the body color.

Its winter range includes a territory embracing all of Arkansas,
southern Missouri, Oklahoma, and northern Texas, according to Mr.

Harlan’s Hawk

85

D. R. Gipple, one of our collectors, who says, “I trap these birds on the
ground, using opossum and rabbit for bait, and I see an average of
from bve to seven a day from the last of October to the middle of
April. They seem to feed mostly on rabbits and quail and more or
less on the smaller birds of all kinds.” Mr. Clyde Day, our other
collector, says, ‘’These hawks seem to make their winter quarters in a
strip about 100 miles north and south and 300 miles east and west. I
see on an average ten a day, half of them Harlan’s.” Both men say

Fig. 26. Adult male H Japan’s Hawk taken in northwestern Arkansas,
February 26, 1929. Ventral aspect.

they have never seen a Harlan’s Hawk nesting in that region, but many
redtails nest there. Mr. H. V. Williams, of Grafton, northeastern
North Dakota, who has collected in that region for many years, says
he has never seen Harlan’s Hawk except during their migration north
in April and May (dates April 3 to May 6), and the migration south
in September, October, and November (dates, September 28 to Novem-
ber 20). He says, “They are a decidedly larger and heavier bird
(very noticeable in the flesh) and the general markings are different.”
Mr. Williams has collected fifty or more of these birds and is in a
position to know them well. He says the flight usually starts with a
few stragglers, and gradually increases to its height (about 200 birds

86

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

for a day or so), then gradually decreases. He says, "I see usually
from 700 to 1000 every spring and fall. They fly with the redtails
and circle the same way, usually very high, but after the first few days
a number of them stop to feed, but are very shy and wild.” We have
a specimen from Cherry County, northern Nebraska, November 12,
1925; and a specimen from Hamilton, in southeastern Kansas, Novem-
ber 22, 1924.

Swarth3 says, “Breeds in extreme northern Bristish Columbia, east
of the coast ranges, north into the valley of the Yukon, and eastward
for an undetermined distance, migrates southward east of the Rocky
Mountains, through the Mississippi Valley, to a winter home in the
Gulf states.” In fact its normal winter range is well to the north of
the gulf region. There are few records east of the Mississippi River.
On April 12, 1893, Mr. Albert Lano collected a female near Madison,
Minnesota, near the Red River ( Auk , XIII, p. 342). Robert Ridgway
records “a fine adult male of this rare species. It was taken by Mr.
Chas. K. Worthen near Warsaw, Hancock County, in March, 1879, "
(Ornithology of Illinois, Part I, p. 472). F. Woodruff records “one
shot near Calumet Lake, Chicago, October 1, 1895,” (Birds of the
Chicago Area, 1907, p. 95). In “Birds of Indiana”, A. M. Butler, in
the Report of the State Geologist for 1897, p. 784, says, “accidental
visitor. Mr. R. B. Williams, Lebanon, Indiana, has a fine specimen of
this hawk, shot in September, 1887, in Boone County, Indiana. This
is the first record of the black hawk from Indiana. The well-known In-
dian chief, Black Hawk, was probably named after this bird.” Taverner
cpiotes Dr. L. B. Bishop, who says, “I collected a fine old male krideri?
in worn breeding plumage, but with a fresh harlani tail, near Rolla.
North Dakota, July 24, 1901.” This might possibly have been a breed-
ing bird, as this is only twenty miles south of the U. S. boundary line.
Swarth, 1926, p. 108, says, “I cannot find, though, that there are
definite published accounts of the breeding of harlani in any region
whatever." He overlooked the account of Charles R. Keyes in The
Warbler, Vol. Ill, 1907, pp. 41-45, who described the breeding of
Harlan’s Hawk in Iowa County, Iowa, near Amana. A pair of the
birds nested in the same woods for five years in succession, and the
first set of eggs was taken April 21. 1898; then Set No. 2 on April
24, 1899; Set No. 3, April 9, 1900; Set No. 4, March 29, 1901; and
Set No. 5 on April 10, 1902, from the same tree and nest as Set No. 1.
Photographs of three of the sets accompany this paper. Three of

•'■Report on a collection of birds and mammals from the All in region, northern
British Columbia. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zook, Vol. 30, No. 4, 1926, pp. 51-162.

Harlan’s H awk

87

these sets were in the John Lewis Childs collection. He says the nests
were placed from thirty to thirty-two feet above ground, and “it will
be seen from the above that the nidification of Harlan’s Hawk differs
quite naturally from the typical instances of the Red-tailed Hawk, the
nest being placed at so low an elevation and without the commanding
view . . . the latter species prefers. The eggs, too, are readily dis-
tinguishable from a typical series of Red-tails.” Later one of these
hawks was shot at the nest and was identified by Mr. Brown as ‘’Har-
lan’s Hawk in the melanistic phase of plumage.” This is the most
southern locality from which this species has been recorded as breed-
ing, and while it was possibly Harlan’s, it may have been only a
melanistic redtail.

Swarth (1926, p. 110) says, “The most I can claim for the facts
here adduced is that they are corroborative of the idea of Buteo b.
harlani being a geographic race rather than a color phase,” while my
work on these birds tends to show that color is one of the constant
and chief differences between it and the redtails.

My study of this species was finished in the winter of 1931, and
this paper was written at this time. The result of my study convinced
me that “ harlani ” was entitled to a specific place in the check-list and
when “The Check List of the Birds of the World” came out I was
glad to see that Peters had arrived at the same conclusion and had
given the species its proper name and place.

Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan,

Ann Arbor, Michigan.

88

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

SNAKES VERSUS BIRDS; BIRDS VERSUS SNAKES

BY J. E. GUTHRIE

"But when I found myself on the ground, I speedily untied the
knot, and had scarcely done so, when the roc, having taken up a ser-
pent of a monstrous length in her bill, llew away. I could not view
without terror a great number of serpents, so monstrous that the least
of them was capable of swallowing an elephant. They retired in the
daytime to their dens, where they hid themselves from the roc, their
enemy, and came out only in the night.’’ From The Second Voyage
of Sindbad, "Arabian Nights'”. Ingersoll (65, p. 200).

"Between the eagle and the dragon there is constant enmity, the
eagle seeking to kill it, and the dragon breaks all the eagles' eggs it
can find; and hearing the noise of the eagle in the air, speedeth to its
den, and there hides himself.” Cruden’s Concordance, 1737 (p. 152).

‘‘By them there sat the loving pellican
Whose young ones poisoned by the serpent’s sting,

With her own blood again to life doth bring.”

Noah’s El ood. Michael Drayton in “Birds in Eegend, Fable and
Folklore” (65, p. 59).

Quoting further from Ingersoll (65, p. 24) : “Whatever tradition or
superstition or other motive affected the choice of a bird as a tribal
totem, or endowed it with sacredness, practical considerations were
surely influential. It is noticeable that the venerated ibis and hawk
in Egypt were useful to the people as devourers of vermin — young
crocodiles, poisonous snakes, grain-eating mice, and so forth. A tra-
dition in the Aegean island Tenos is that Poseidon, a Greek St. Patrick,
sent storks to clear the island of snakes, which originally were numer-
ous there. Australian frontiersmen preserve the big kingfisher dubbed
laughing-jackass for the same good reason.”

Ingersoll (65, p. 39) recounts how “the Aztecs moved into the
valley of Mexico and settled upon certain islets in a marshy lake—
the site of the subsequent City of Mexico; and this safe site is said to
have been pointed out to them by a sign from their gods — an eagle
perched upon a prickly-pear cactus, the nopal, in the act of strangling
a serpent. Cortez engraved it upon his Great Seal, and Mexico has
kept it to this day.'

Someone has said: "A bird is but a glorified reptile”, and the

Mayas of Yucatan guarded their great temple with stone statues of
feather-decked rattlesnakes representing their deity Huitzilopochtli or
Kukulcan — surely a glorified reptile!

Snakes vs. Birds: Birds vs. Snakes

89

Naturally, the main relation between birds and snakes is a food-
relation. Snakes are meat and birds are meat. Snakes are carni-
vorous and so are many birds, very few birds being entirely vegetarian.
Some snakes eat eggs and so do some birds. Some snakes and some
birds compete among themselves and with each other for items in the
same food supply. If the heron spears the frog, the water snake goes
hungry; if the bull snake seizes the mouse, the hawk dines elsewhere.
The garter snake dozes away the morning, digesting his supper of
earthworms while the early bird hunts just that much harder for a
cropful. Mrs. Mary L. Bailey (6, p. 221) even witnessed a spirited
battle between an American Bittern and a snake, judged to be a garter
snake, for the possession of a frog which both had seized. The bird
got the lunch. And we may go even deeper; for the mouse that would
have eaten the weed seeds is the prey of a milk snake, and the Song
Sparrow converts those very seeds into songs. It might make life
interesting to a cricket to speculate whether a young blue racer will
seize him, or whether he will be stuffed down the hunger-well of a
nestling meadowlark. Moreover, sometimes the scaly and the feathery
beings have common enemies. A garter snake, a chickadee, a mouse
and a grasshopper might easily find themselves close neighbors — cen-
trally located in a henhawk.

Before going more specifically into these food relations, let us
look at a touching instance of devotion, in which the serpent even gives
the coat off his back for the comfort of the others’ bairns. It is
Myriarchus crinitus boreus , of course, that “Wild Irishman of the fly-
catchers” as the Sage of Slabsides called the Northern Crested Fly-
catcher, who is the best known “ol -clo’es man — he and some cousins
of his. Alexander Wilson (120, Vol. 2, p. 134) says: “Snake skins
with this bird appear to be an indispensable article, for I have never
yet found one of his nests without this material forming a part of it.
Whether he surrounds his nest thus by way of terrorem, to prevent
other birds or animals from entering, or whether he finds its silky
softness suitable for his young is uncertain; the fact however is no-
torious.” In speaking of the several species of birds which bed them-
selves with snake sloughs, Finn (41, p. 113) says: “All of the birds
with this liking for snakes' old clothes breed in holes, and it has been
suggested that the slough is used to terrify intrusive lizards, which are
no friends to eggs and young birds, and are themselves preyed upon
by snakes.” Slrecker (111, p. 506) apparently disproves this suppo-
sition by listing among fourteen snake-skin users, eight which nest in
holes, one which usually does and five which do not. Dugmore (38,

90

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

p. 106) remarks of the same bird’s home: ‘"Nest in a hollow in a

tree, it is rather bulky composed of grasses, weeds, feathers, and fre-
quently castoff snake skins. ' Davie (34, p. 241) speaks of the nest
of the Arizona Crested Flycatcher, Myiarchus tyrannulus magister, as
being “entirely similar to that of M. crinilus even to the traditional
snake skins.” Of the Mexican Crested Flycatcher, Myiarchus tyran-
nulus nelsoni: “With one exception no snake skins were used in the

construction of any of the nests.” Also noted by Merrill (81, pp.
118-173). According to Chapman (27, p. 124) Lieut. Wirt Robinson
has discovered that one of the commonest and most generally dis-
tributed species of the genus in South America places cast snake-skins
in its nest. The habit is therefore widespread and is common to birds
living under greatly varying conditions. Myers (85, p. 78), describing
nest linings of Myiarchus cinerascens cinerascens, comments: “Occa-
sionally snake skins, but these are not so frequently used as by the
eastern birds." Strecker (111, pp. 501-507) has collected written rec-
ords and has observed widely concerning this use of cast snake skins.
He mentions, besides the flycatchers already referred to, the Eastern
and Western Blue Grosbeaks, Guiraca caerulea caerulea and Guiraca
caerulea interfusa, the Gray-tailed Cardinal, Richmondena cardinalis
canicauda, a single instance of the English Sparrow, Passer domesticus
doniesticus , and four instances of the Carolina Wren, Thryothorus
ludovicianus. One of these, Abbott (1, p. 158), was in New Jersey.
Of the Black-crested Titmouse he says: “A description of the nest of
this species would be incomplete without mention of the ‘casts’.” The
road-runner, Geococcyx calif or nianus, shows also this habit according
to Jaeger (66, p. 13) and Bailey (5). Hume (61, p. 72), mentioned
also by Strecker, mentions the Bank Mynah. Acridotheres gingianus,
as using “feathers, grass and scraps of snake skins.” Hume (61, pp.
77-79) also remarks the same habit in the two robins of India, viz.,
the Brown-backed Indian Robin, Thamnobia cambaiensis, and the Black-
hacked Indian Robin, Thamnobia julicata. Whitaker (119, p. 74)
finds the Rufous W arbler building snake skins into its home. And
now, if only snakes would build themselves nests of birds’ feathers!
Snakes have been found in hens' nests, of course, which is not sur-
prising when one considers how fond a serpent is of that warmth
which Mother Nature has denied it in its own right. A considerable
number of instances have come to our attention in newspaper clippings
and otherwise. In one case, Tessman (newspaper item), it was a rattle-
snake, and the hen was dead when found, the assassin coiled beneath
her body. A parallel case is on record, Cameron (26, p. 383), of a

Snakes vs. Birds: Birds vs. Snakes

91

viper found in the nest of a Buzzard, Buteo vulgaris. In this instance,
noted from Pomerania, the living viper was found beneath the dead
body of the female Buzzard. Sometimes it has been bull snakes or
other snakes which may have come because they were egg-hungry.

Snakes Eat Birds

In dealing with the direct food relations between these two classes
of animals we shall first consider snakes as the eaters. Some birds
and some snakes consume eggs. All birds and some snakes lay them.
Advantage goes to the snake, however, for her eggs are usually better
concealed. To offset this, the caciques, icterine birds allied to the
orioles, weave pendant nests a yard long, apparently to ensure safety
from monkeys and snakes. An instance is recorded by Blanchard (18,
p. 48) in which a captive milk snake ate even the eggs of a ring-neck
snake. Two tropical, egg-eating snakes are so specialized for this egg
diet that ventral ly projecting blades from the neck vertebrae slit the
shells of birds’ eggs that are being swallowed. Did the man who in-
vented the bancl-cutter on the threshing machine know about this, we
wonder! In Boulenger’s Fauna of British India (22, p. 393) we read
concerning the genus Elachistodon : “As in the African genus Dasy-

peltis, each of the anterior vertebrae has the hypapophysis or inferior
process much elongate, toothlike, capped with enamel and penetrating
the walls of the oesophagus." It has been observed that the African
snakes feed on eggs, (Wood, 122, III, p. 135) “which are broken in
passing along this series of processes, and having arrived so far down
the gullet that the mouth can he closed, none of the contents are lost.
The same is doubtless the case with Elachistodon .”

The process of engulfing an egg is an interesting one to watch,
whether it is by a milk snake or young bull snake swallowing a spar-
row’s egg, or a full-grown pilot blacksnake taking down a hen’s egg.
The egg is approached, touched delicately with the tips of the ex-
quisitely sensitive tongue, and the diner is satisfied that it is desirable
food. (How can a young snake know what is going to be inside his
first egg? Ask Nature!). The snake now often moves about, stretches
its jaws, does various things before actually beginning the swallowing
process. Why? Perhaps its imagination is setting its salivary glands
at work secreting the large amount of saliva necessary as a lubricant.
The snake does not lick over its prey — egg, bird, or mouse — to make
it slippery before beginning its meal. An egg is a difficult object to
get into the mouth; it is so big, round and smooth, and so hard. John
Cole, of Wisconsin, told the writer that his father had known a bull
snake in Iowa to visit a turkey’s nest daily and swallow the freshly

92

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

laid egg. The jaws are pushed over it as the egg is pressed against
some convenient object or even against the snake's own coils. Ad-
vancing right and left sides alternately its jaws literally crawl over
the mouthful. When it is past the head, the muscles of the neck con-
tract and pull it down. After passing down perhaps a foot (in a five-
foot snake), the muscles are powerfully tightened and the rough lower
ridges of the vertebrae brought to bear on the egg so that the shell
gives way. Some snakes are said to swallow the egg whole all the way
down and to rely on the digestive juices to dissolve the shell in the
stomach. Snakes are sometimes over-eager nest robbers, as witness the
note by Holt (58) describing the swallowing of a stone nest egg by a
pilot snake, Maphe obsolete!. Another snake, a bull snake, is also re-
ferred to by Trine (117, p. 4) as having swallowed a glass one. Sev-
eral episodes are reported of the persistence of snakes after they had
once located a nest of eggs. Northup (in 86, p. 330) drove a blue
racer out of a bush in which it was caught in the act of taking an egg
from the nest of a Red-winged Blackbird. Thirty minutes later the
bird's cries of distress drew the observer back to the nest where he
again found the racer. Seiler (103, p. 189) discovered a large bull
snake which was climbing the tree containing a wren’s nest. She
frightened the intruder away. It soon returned and was found with
its head inside the entrance of the wren house. One more such in-
stance: Spencer (106, pp. 108-110) records the attack of a black

racer on a Catbird’s nest in a huckleberry bush. Having eaten all but
two of the young birds, it was driven away but was soon back for
another, and a little later returned for the last survivor. This observer
also found that the eggs of a Bob-white, placed under a hen for hatch-
ing, were disappearing, with a great commotion by the foster-mother
every time one was taken. When the last one disappeared he saw a
great black snake gliding off through the grass.

Some species of snakes confine themselves to cold-blooded prey.
Ditmars (37, p. 249) says: “Water snakes do not eat birds,” and of
garter snakes, Ditmars (36, p. 246) : “Adult garter snakes feed prin-
cipally upon frogs, toads, and earthworms — never upon warm-blooded
prey.” This statement agrees with the experience of the writer,
Guthrie (55, p. 186), who lias had scores of garter snakes in captivity
and has yet to see one consume or even kill a bird or mouse, or eat a
bird’s egg. Esther E. Gilmore (52) working at the University of
Michigan Biological Station in 1930 tried repeatedly to get garter
snakes to eat living and dead birds and birds’ eggs. The only success
she had was in using a kinglet with wings and tail clipped off. A

Snakes vs. Birds: Birds vs. Snakes

93

garter snake, Thamnophis sirtalis. was finally induced to swallow it.

Garter snakes do eat birds occasionally, however, for we have
the word of several good observers on this point. Gabrielson (48, p.
137) saw a garter snake swallow the last of nine eggs in a Bobolink’s
nest in Iowa. Ruthven (97, p. 13) says of garter snakes, genus Tham-
nophis-. "On the dryer uplands they have been observed to eat . . .
Iledgl ing birds. While in captivity iL seems to be impossible to get
them to eat dead food, but in the wild state specimens of three species
( sirtalis , radix , elegans) have been observed to eat . . . birds that had
been dead for a considerable time." The writer has had several garter
snakes in captivity that came after a time to accept dead frogs or
pieces of any kind of meat. Branson (23, p. 377) mentions a case
where a western hognose snake, Heterodon nasicus, ate a dead Western
Meadowlark. Some snakes such as the grass snake, Liopeltis vernalis ,
the red-bellied snake, Storeria occipito-maculata, and De Kay’s snake,
Storeria dekayi , as well as the tiny worm-snakes of the genus Carpho-
phis are too small to eat birds, even if they cared for warm-blooded
prey.

Of the bull snake, Pituophis, Ditmars (37, p. 319) says it “is
particularly fond of eggs, and consumes them entire, breaking tbe
shells in the throat by a contraction of the muscles. The writer wit-
nessed an illustration of the voracity of one of these creatures. It
swallowed fourteen hens' eggs, breaking the shell of each after the egg
had passed about a foot down the throat. The demonstration closed
by the supply of eggs becoming exhausted and not from any indiffer
ence on the reptile’s part. " Many large bull snakes in tbe author’s
cages could not be induced to eat hen’s eggs at all, and others only
occasionally.

As to the eating of birds by snakes, probably any snake that eats
eggs will as readily eat the young birds, or even the old birds if of
the proper size, and if it can catch them. The young are helpless and
cannot escape, but the parents usually do unless surprised on the nest,
bird-charming stories Lo the contrary, notwithstanding. Of the food
of the copperhead, Ditmars (37, p. 422) also writes: “Here these

snakes find abundance of food in tbe shape of birds, small rodents,
and frogs. During the late spring these snakes prefer young birds,
showing in fact such a decided preference to this food that some snakes
will fast unless provided with the feathered prey.”

The ways in which snakes catch birds are varied' and interesting.
With helpless nestlings and eggs, of course, the maurauder usually has
an easy time of it, as nests are often placed on the ground or in low

94

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

bushes. Van Denburgh writes (Blanchard 19, p. 78) of the Boyle s
king snake, Lampropeltis getulus boylii : '"I have twice found it swal-

lowing the contents of quails’ nests, and once observed one crawling
along the ground, and looking up into the bushes for nests of small
birds. Several times while I watched, its quick eyes detected nests
three or four feet above it, but although the snake immediately climbed
up to these, it did not obtain a meal, for the nests which it examined
had been abandoned by their builders or robbed by some earlier
comer.” Director Edgar R. Harlan of the Iowa Historical Society
Museum, told the writer that he once shot a pilot snake while it “was
investigating a flicker’s nest about sixty feet from the ground.” Some-
times the parent birds become militant in defense of their homes. Dr.
T. C. Stephens mentions (in correspondence) a case in which a female
Brown Thrasher fought an intruding snake. Birds of other species
than those molested frequently gather about an attacking snake and
try to scold it to death. Results negative.

The usual method of capture is by a quick dart of the head — a
snake’s lunge is almost unbelievably swift — and the victim is seized
by the nearest corner, head, body, leg, wing; the serpent sometimes
getting only a mouthful of wing or tail feathers. The writer has ob-
served that when a rattlesnake strikes a mouse or ground squirrel or
rat it usually sinks its fangs with their charge of venom, then retreats
to a little distance to await the victim's death. With an English Spar-
row, however, the rattler seldom lets go after the stroke but holds on
until the poison has done its work. As a snake could not follow its
wounded prey by the air route it probably saves not a few meals by
this habit. Of course the non-venomous bird-eaters retain their hold
until the captured prey is either killed — in the case of such constric-
tors as the bull snake, fox snake, or pilot snake — or until it gets the
living prey jockeyed around into swallowing position — in case of a
racer or coach-whip. As to how the bird is approached or attracted
near enough to be taken there seems to be some doubt. Probably such
an inconspicuous object as a snake, fitting so well into the lines and
colors of its surroundings, may often be accidentally approached by
a hapless bird which does not realize the presence of the danger until
too late. Probably, also, the noiseless reptile occasionally sneaks up
successfully while its intended quarry is otherwise occupied. It is in-
teresting to know that from the same Anglo-Saxon word silicon , to
creep, came the two words, snake and sneak.

Snakes vs. Birds: Birds vs. Snakes

95

The question of the occult influence which a snake’s mind is
popularly supposed to exert on the mind of the bird is a matter of
spirited debate. Over a century ago, James E. DeKay observed (35,
p. 57) : "The absurd notion of fascination is entertained by few at
the present day. Psychologists versed in the lore of mind, an d kn ow-
ing how much inferior is the reptile brain to that of its avian prey
deny this power to the snake — and one cannot doubt that men who
have observed snakes for half a life time and studied them under-
standing^, would be likely to be on the lookout for and would notice
any evidence of this phenomenon. Such men almost universally ex-
press their disbelief in any such occurrence in nature. The writer
has had many bird-eating snakes — rattlers, fox snakes, bull snakes,
pilot snakes, whip-snakes, blacksnakes, blue racers, king snakes, and
boas. He has seen a sparrow peck at a rattlesnake’s nose and ride
around on the coils of a writhing rattler or bull snake. There was
usually no evidence of fear unless the snake lunged, and never a sign
of that paralysis supposed to hold the victim immovable through the
baleful glare of the serpent’s eye. To be sure, not to have seen such
a phenomenon does not prove its impossibility. In explanation of
the happenings one often hears recounted one is inclined to think of
a fear paralysis such as sometimes is said to hold a man when a loco-
motive or automobile bears suddenly down upon him. Perhaps, thus,
fear is the explanation. Undoubtedly the frantic parents in defense
of nest and young sometimes venture too close for safety. Possibly
a pugnacious bird in attacking an intruder becomes foolhardy — and
rues it. And so, in the face of many hard-to-explain accounts by ob-
servers who thus interpreted the things they observed, Mr. H. A. Sur-
face in “The Serpents of Pennsylvania"’ (114, p. 120) observes: "It

is popularly believed that snakes have the power to charm birds and
the lower animals and even mankind, but with the most careful in-
vestigation, we can not find satisfactory evidences of the truth of this.
It is true that some creatures, such as birds, and even some persons,
become so terrified at suddenly seeing a snake that they act more or
less helpless, but this is quite different from being charmed.

Max Morse in Batrachians and Reptiles of Ohio (84, p. 100) re-
marks: “So many superstitions are associated with these forms of

animal life that it would be impossible to cover them in this paper, to
say nothing of attempting to disprove them. As classic examples we
may cite . . . the charming power of snakes. It is needless to say that
all these are myths.” In “the Poisonous Snakes of North America"
(108, pp. 292-293) Dr. Leonard Stejneger reviews the evidence con-

96

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

cerning “charming’ thus: “The popular belief in the power of the
poisonous snake to ‘charm' its victims into a state of helplessness is by
no means exterminated. In spite of all that has been argued and ex-
plained against it there are people still who profess to have ocular
proof of this power. Time and again it has been related by trust-
worthy observers how birds or small mammals have been seen to ap-
proach the coiled snake, drawn toward it as if by a magic spell they
were unable to withstand, etc. There is evidently enough truth in the
numberless observations of this nature to keep the scientist busy trying
to evolve a theory by which to explain so much of the stories as ap-
peared worthy of being admitted as facts.” D. Humphreys Storer in
Reptiles of Massachusetts (112, p. 234) writes of the rattlesnakes,
Crotalus : “The power of fascination attributed to this genus is too

absurd to require our serious consideration.” Another authority on
reptiles, E. D. Cope (29, pp. 713-714) explains thus: “Snakes are

popularly believed to possess the power of ‘charming' or attracting to
themselves other animals, especially birds, against their will, so that
they easily capture them for food. This belief rests on a habit which
is usual among the smaller birds of annoying other animals which they
dislike or fear. Every one knows how they will congregate about an
owl which has not sufficiently concealed itself by daylight and will
make their hostility known by cries and efforts to strike their enemy.
I have witnessed a crowd of birds collected about a black snake, which
displayed their hostility by many cries and movements, the snake the
while eying them with an inactive interest. Should one of the birds
venture too near, I strongly suspect that the snake would take advan-
tage of the opportunity to secure a meal, but this l have not witnessed.
I believe, however, that the stories of ‘charming’ are due to an ob-
servation of this not uncommon experience of the field naturalist.” In
his account of the Boomslange (tree-snake), Bucephalus capensis.
Wood states (122, p. 136) : “The Boomslange is generally found in

trees, to which it resorts for the purpose of catching birds, upon which
it delights to feed. The presence of a specimen in a tree is generally
soon discovered by the birds of the neighborhood, who collect around
it and fly to and fro, uttering the most piercing cries, until some one,
more terror-stricken than the rest, actually scans its lips, and almost
without resistance, becomes a meal for its enemy.” Dr. S. Weir
Mitchell (82, p. ), who had unexcelled opportunities for observa-
tion, wrote of the way in which birds and small animals behaved fear-
lessly when introduced into a cage with rattlesnakes and often came
to live intimately with them. He concluded: “These are the sole

Snakes vs. Birds: Birds vs. Snakes

97

facts which I have seen bearing any relation to the supposed fascinat-
ing faculty. They appear to me to lend no strength to the idea of its
existence.”

And Birds Devour Snakes

So far as the literature goes the writer has found no record of
birds having consumed the eggs of snakes, though doubtless some of
them would do so if they could find them. Some strange instances
come to light occasionally in which the most unexpected of birds are
snake-eaters. The writer has been told of hens killing and eating
green snakes, Liopeltis vernalis, in Iowa, and Blatchley (20, p. 549)
writes: "I saw a chicken running along the roadside with a squirming

snake in its bill. After a sharp chase of the fowl through a rail fence
and a blackberry patch, its prey was dropped and proved to be a fine
specimen of Storer’s snake, Storeria occipitomaculata." Crimmins
(32, p. 46) says: “I have personally seen chickens kill and eat rattle-

snakes.” These were young Texas diamond-back rattlers about twelve
inches long. Oddly enough, several observations show that Robins
sometimes feed them to their nestlings. McIntosh (76, p. 152) found
a Robin pecking a thirteen -inch garter snake. The snake was evi-
dently nearly dead when the bird finally managed to pick it up and fly
off about seventy-five feet to a post on which one of its young was
seated. It tried to feed it to the baby, which, of course, was unable
to handle the unwieldy morsel. The snake was dropped to the ground
hut was picked up later and another futile attempt made to feed it
to the young bird. Marshall (80, p. 304) saw a Robin kill a ten-inch
garter snake and carry it up into a tree. Being called away he did
not see the snake eaten but it was gone when he returned. Friedmann
(47, pp. 259-260) once put two young Cowbirds in a Robin’s nest.
The Robins accepted and reared them and on one occasion he noticed
that one of the young Cowbirds had been fed a very young garter
snake which it finally swallowed and digested. Mallard Ducks are
reported to occasionally eat snakes, ( McAtee 78, p. 113), while Hay
(56, p. 527) says that turkeys and ducks eat garter snakes. Crimmins
(32, p. 47) says chickens and muscovy ducks ate pieces of a young
Texas diamond-hack rattlesnake, Crotalus atrox.

However, these are apparently unusual cases. Some birds which
are mainly meat-eaters as shrikes, hawks, herons and the like eat con-
siderable numbers of the scaly prey. Note the name “serpent eagle
applied to members of the genus Spilornis in the East Indies and
Africa. The harrier eagles, Batastur, are also called “serpent eagles"
and several kites go by the name of “snake hawks”. The shrikes or

98

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

butcher birds, besides their usual fare of insects, rodents, and birds
have serpents occasionally on their menu. Ditmars (36, p. 274) nar-
rates thus: “During a collecting trip a queer observation was made.

A heavy rain had fallen the night before, enticing the burrowing
snakes from their hiding places. Evidently the scarlet snakes, Cemo-
phora coccinea. had been conspicuous objects during the early morn-
ing. On the ends of dead twigs and stems, right and left, were the
weird souvenirs of the shrikes or butcher birds, consisting of partially-
eaten bodies of snakes. The reptiles were securely fastened by forc-
ing the tip of the twig into the body cavity like a finger into a glove.
Tbs shrike is a carnivorous bird, notorious in having eyes too big for
its stomach. Its half-eaten prey is thus jauntily deserted."

One would consider venomous sea-snakes safe from attacks of
birds, but sea captains of the Molucca and Sunda Straits told Dr.
Ditmars (36, p. 289) of having seen albatrosses and frigate birds
dragging these serpents from the waves and flying to the rigging of
the ship to kill and devour them. South Africa has two animals com-
monly known as “ringhals”. One is a cobra which eats birds and
eggs, the other is the white-necked raven which often feeds on snakes.
Even the bush kingfisher, Halcyon , of Africa, and the “laughing jack-
ass”, Dacelo gigas , kingfisher of Australia, are snakivorous. The lat-
ter, according to Wood (122, p. 170), “catches them by the tail and
crushing their heads with its powerful beak . . ." Another observer,
Eucas and LeSouef (74, p. 161), describes the execution somewhat
differently: “Swooping down from his perch of observation, with his

formidable beak the latter (Laughing Jackass) strikes the snake before
his own feet reach the ground, breaks the back of the reptile, and so
disables it. He will fly up with the snake in his mouth, and then let
it drop from a height back to the ground, and repeat this treatment
until the snake can be safely swallowed.” The ground hornbill,
Bucorax cafer , subsists partly upon these reptiles as does the ground
cuckoo known as Road-runner or chaparral cock of our Pacific coast,
renowned in popular belief as being a valiant slayer of rattlesnakes.
Naturally, many raptorial birds such as hawks, owls, and buzzards
find scaly prey to their taste. Of the wading birds, the Sandhill
Crane, Crus canadensis tab i da , the Great Blue Heron, Ardea h. herodias ,
and the American Bittern, Botaurus lentiginosus , are serpent eaters.
Klauber (70, p. 13) observes: “Aside from man, the principal ene-

mies of the rattle snakes in this county [San Diego County, California]
are birds and other snakes. Eagles, hawks, and owls are sometimes
seen carrying rattlers and other snakes in their talons.” Blatchley

Snakes vs. Birds: Birds vs. Snakes

99

(20, p. 548) says: “I observed a sparrowhawk lly across a meadow

bearing a wriggling snake in its talons. I stepped up behind the thorn
tree in which it alighted and giving a sudden whoop caused it to drop
its prey, which proved to he an example of Eutainia ( Thamnophis )
sirtahs parietahs , the red-barred garter snake.” Quoting from Bar-
bour (9, p. 28) : “Our red-shouldered hawk seems to feed almost ex-
clusively upon snakes, at least in Florida. That curious hawk, the
Secretary-bird of South Africa, classified as Serpentarius secretarius,
eats any and all snakes, as do some of the great heavy-hilled storks
and ibises which kill their prey with blows of their powerful beaks.”
w . P. Pycraft (95, p. 115) writes: “The Secretary-bird ( Serpentarius
reptilivorus ) of South Africa, from its fondness for poisonous snakes,
has during the last few years been rigidly protected by law. Standing
nearly four feet in height and of powerful build, this remarkable bird
- — an aberrant member of the hawk tribe — displays no small skill and
caution in attacking its venomous prey, shielding itself by means of
the wings and kicking violently with both feet until its victim is van-
quished.” Sometimes it is said to fly high in the air and kill its prey
by dropping it on the rocks. Saintleven (100), in speaking of rattle-
snakes in southern Texas, recounts: “Wild turkeys show a great an-

tipathy to them, and never fail to make a direct and persistent attack
until the reptile is destroyed." Speaking of an instance which he had
witnessed, he tells of watching a large flock of wild turkeys of which
the gobblers were engaged in killing a large rattlesnake. “One after
another would spring into the air in rapid succession and come down
on the reptile which they struck a hard blow with one wing. ... It is
their custom to eat the snakes killed in that way."

Thus between birds and snakes the honors, or dishonors, appear
to be rather equally divided. To some species of birds, and to other
species at certain seasons, snakes, both venomous and non-venomous,
are the preferred normal diet. Other birds of somewhat omnivorous
habits so far as animal food goes, get an occasional serpent. A few,
Robins for example, may classify small snakes as merely unusually
active angleworms and therefore good baby-food.

And with snakes much the same situation exists. Some are in-
veterate nest yeggs, getting most of their living by this species of
burglary. Others catch many birds, both nestling and adult. A few
occasionally eat dead birds, even as Crows and buzzards prize a dead
snake as highly as a living one.

100

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

For practical purposes, for the Middle West, the Buteo hawks,
especially the Red-tailed Hawk, the Marsh Hawk, and probably to a
lesser extent Crows, herons and bitterns are the birds which send a
shudder down the sinuous backbones of small snakes, Aet even though
these birds take toll of some of our most valuable snakes, their rodent-
destroying habits place them safely in the column of our feathered
farm friends. And as to our snakes, what shall we say? Probably
the pilot blacksnake, an inveterate climber, destroys more birds than
any other in its habitat. Branson (23, p. 388) believed this to be the
case in Kansas. Bull snakes, fox snakes, and racers get some eggs and
young birds, with occasionally an adult. All these snakes are ex-
tremely valuable as mousers, ratters, squirrelers, and gopherers; and
the blue racer as an insect-eater as well, to be too hastily condemned
and summarily executed en masse for being “bird-lovers”. Our other
snakes probably do too little harm to birds to even deserve dishonor-
able mention.

Following is a list of snake bird-eaters and bird snake-eaters,
not at all exhaustive, but suggestive, gathered from what literature
was accessible to the writer. A considerable number of the references
were kindly suggested by T. C. Stephens.

Snakes Eaten by Birds

In the following list the scientific as well as the common names
of both snakes and birds are given when known. Of course, in many
cases the species was unknown to the observer, at least the name was
not recorded. In other cases the statement found applies to a whole
group: as “herons", “hawks”, “birds”, “birds’ eggs”, “garter snakes”,
“colubers”, etc. In the numerous cases recorded merely as “reptiles”,
snakes and lizards or either one of them may have been meant, but
they have not been included in this list. It is probable that any birds
that would eat lizards would also eat snakes of suitable size; and that
snakes which would eat one bird or egg would devour any other of
like size if obtainable. Some of the records are of isolated cases, while
others indicate a regular food habit. Moreover, some are records of
captive specimens, others of observations in the wild; while many have
been gained from stomach examinations of collected specimens. It is
not always possible from the records to determine which of the above
was the case.

Snakes vs. Birds: Birds vs. Snakes

101

Albatrosses eat sea snakes, Boulenger (21).

Water Turkey or Snake Bird, Anhinga anhinga , eats snakes, Audubon
(4).

Florida Cormorant, Phalacrocorax auritus floridanus , ate a water
snake, Matrix, Pearson (94) .

Frigate birds eat sea snakes, Boulenger (21).

Large sea birds eat poisonous sea snakes, Ditmars (36, p. 289).

Mallard Duck, Anas boschas, eats small snakes, McAtee (77, p. 10) ;
McAtee (78, p. 113 ). Rattlesnakes, Crimmins (32, p. 47).

Ducks eat garter snakes, Hay (56, p. 527). Eat Thamnophis sirtalis,
De Kay (35, p. 45) .

Crested Screamer or snake crane, Chauna cristata , (of Brazil) fond of
snakes as food, McAtee (78).

White Ibis, Guam alba . eats snakes, mostly moccasins, Agkistrodon
piscivorus, Baynard (13).

Glossy Ibis, Blegadis autumnalis, eats snakes, mostly moccasins, Bay-
nard (14).

Egyptian Ibis, foe to small snakes, Ingersoll (65, p. 17).

Wood Ibis, Jabiru, Mycteria americana , eats snakes, Netting (88, p.
28) ; Smith (105, p. 59).

Ibises eat snakes, Barbour (9, p. 28).

Storks eat snakes, Barbour (9); Netting (88). Eat ringed snake,
T ropidonotus natrix, Schmeil (102, p. 240).

American Bittern, Botaurus lentiginosus, eats snakes, Barrows (11, p.
128); Howell (59, p. 24). Water-snakes, Netting (88, p. 28).

Great Blue Heron, Ardea herodias, eats snakes, Baker (7) ; Barrows
(11, p. 136) ; Howell (59, p. 25).

American Egret, Ardea egretta, eats small water snakes, Wilson and
Bonaparte (120, Vol. 2, p. 300). Mostly moccasins, Agkistrodon
piscivorus , Baynard (13).

Egret, Ardea (?) ruja , eats snakes, mostly moccasins, Agkistrodon
piscivorus, Baynard (13).

Snowy Egret eats snakes, mostly moccasins, Agkistrodon piscivorus.
Baynard (13).

Little Blue Heron, Ardea caerulea , eats snakes, Baynard (14). Mostly
moccasins, Agkistrodon piscivorus , Baynard (13).

Louisiana Heron, Ardea tricolor ruficollis, eats snakes, Baker (7).

Green Heron, Ardea virescens, eats snakes. Baker (7).

Black-crowned Night Heron, Nycticorax nycticorax naevius, eats snakes,
Baker (7).

102

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

Yellow-crowned Night Heron, Nyctanassa violaceus, eats snakes, Baker

(7).

Whooping Crane, Grus americana, eats snakes, Netting (88, p. 28).
Sandhill Crane, Grus mexicana, eats snakes, Barrows (11, p. 150).
Virginia Kail, Rallus virginianus, ate a DeKay’s snake, Storeria dekayi,
and a garter snake, Thamnophis sirtalis, Calm (25, p. 94).

Emu, Droma novae-hollandiae , eats snakes, Smith (105, p. 59).
Chickens, Callus gallus, ate a red-bellied snake, Storeria occipitoma-
culata , Blatchley (20, p. 549). Garter snakes, Thamnophis sir-
talis, DeKay (35, p. 45 ) ; Crimmins (32, p. 47).

Turkeys, Meleagris , eat garter snakes, Thamnophis species, Hay (56, p.

527). Thamnophis sirtalis , DeKay (35, p. 45); Saintleven (100).
Vultures eat living serpents, Wilson and Bonaparte (120, Vol. 3, p.
325).

Turkey Buzzard, Cathartes aura, (nestling) ate a house snake, Lam-
propeltis, Roddy (96, p. 245). Eats snakes, Barrows (11, p. 256).
Black-winged Falcon, Elanus melanopterus, eats snakes, Wood (122,
p. 63) .

Swallow-tailed Kite, snake hawk, Elanoides forficatus, eats snakes,
Barrows (11, p. 260); Fisher (42); Howell (60, p. 37); Netting
(88, p. 28). Seen carrying long, slender snakes, Audubon (4).
Mississippi Kite, Ictinia mississippiensis, eats snakes, Barrows (11, p.
261); Howell (60, p. 37); Netting (88, p. 28). Eats rough
green-snake, Opheodrys aestivus, Wilson and Bonaparte (120, Vol.
1, P- 71).

Kites are large consumers of snakes, Baskett (12, p. 143).

Sharp-shinned Hawk, Acci piter velox, only occasionally snakes, Net-
ting, (88, p. 28).

Goshawk, Astur atricapillus, only occasionally snakes, Netting (88,

p. 28).

Marsh Hawk, Circus hudsonius, eats snakes, Fisher (42) ; Wilson and
Bonaparte (120, p. 244) ; Howell (60, p. 37).

Buzzard, Huleo, (an African hawk) eats useful snakes, Fitzsimons
(43, Vol. 2, pp. 34-35).

Buzzard, lluteo vulgaris, natural enemy of the viper, Pelias berus, and
ringed snake, Tropidonotus natrix, Schmeil (102, p. 240). Snakes,
Thorburn (115, p. 80) .

Bed-tailed Hawk. Buteo borealis , nestling ale a spreading adder, llet-
erodon contortrix. Over (91, p. 28). Rattlesnakes, Netting (88,

p. 28).

Snakes vs. Birds: Birds vs. Snakes

103

Western Red-tailed Hawk. Buteo borealis calurus, eats snakes, Eliot
(40, p. 151).

Krider’s Hawk, Buteo borealis krideri, ate a blue racer, Coluber con-
strictor flaviventris, Gloyd (53, p. 141).

Red-shouldered Hawk, Buteo lineatus , eats snakes (almost exclusively
in Florida), Barbour (9) ; Nicholson (90, Vol. 42, p. 35) ; Eaton
(39, Vol. 2, p. 84) ; Howell (59, p. 39).

\\ hite-tailed Hawk, Buteo albicaudatus sennetti, eats snakes, Fisher
(42).

Swainson s Hawk, Buteo swainsoni, occasionally brought snakes for its
young. Ate a garter snake, T hamnophis sirtalis , and an entire
rattlesnake, Cameron (26, p. 174 and pp. 282-283).

Golden Eagle, Acjuila chrysaeetos, very partial to snakes, Cameron
(26, p. 382); Fisher (42). Prairie rattlesnake, Crotalus con-
fluentus, Netting (88, p. 28).

Bald Eagle, American eagle, Haliae'etus leucocephalus, eats snakes,
Barrows (11, p. 288).

Jean le blanc Eagle, Circaetus gallicus, eats snakes, Wood (122, p. 38).

Eagles eat rattlesnakes and other snakes, Klauher (70, p. 13).

Serpent eagles, genus Spilornis , eat snakes, New Internat. Encyc. (89).

Harrier Eagle or serpent eagle, genus Batast-ur , (Asiatic and African)
eats snakes, New Internat. Encyc. (89).

Bataleur, Helotarsus ecaudatus , (African) eats snakes. New Internat.
Encyc. (89).

Jardine’s harrier (Australia) very fond of small snakes, Wood (122.
p. 94 ) .

Harrier hawk, Polyboroides, (African) eats snakes, Fitzsimons (43,
Vol. 2, p. 38).

Sparrow Hawk, Falco sparverius , ate red-barred garter snake, Tham-
nophis sirtalis parietalis , Blatchley (20, p. 548). Eats small
snakes, Wilson and Bonaparte (120, Vol. 1, p. 30); Howell (59.
p. 41).

Hawks eat rattlesnakes, genus Crotalus, and other snakes, Klauher
(70, p. 13). Garter snakes, Thamnophis, Hay (56, p. 527).
Thamnophis sirtalis, DeKay (35, p. 45).

Secretary-bird, serpent eagle, Serpentarius secretarius, (Africa) eats
snakes, Fitzsimons (43, Vol. 2, pp. 38 and 155); Basket! (12, p.
143) ; Barbour (9, p. 28) ; Daglish (33, p. 176). Poisonous snakes,
Pycraft (95, p. 115). Eats cobras, three snakes as thick as a
man’s arm found in one, Wood (122, pp. 89-90).

104

The Wiison Bulletin — June, 1932

Screech Owl. Otus asio asio , ate young garter snake, Allen (2, p. 6).

Burrowing Owl, Speotyto cunicularia , attacks live snakes, eats dead
ones, probably eats small rattlesnakes, Netting (88, p. 28).

Burrowing Owl, Speotyto cunicularia hypogaea, eats Hammond’s gar-
ter snake, Thamnophis ordinoides hammondii, (body of one photo-
graphed in burrow), McLean (79, p. 13).

Owls eat rattlesnakes and other snakes, Klauber (70, p. 13). Garter
snakes, Hay (56, p. 527). Garter snake, Thamnophis sirtalis,
DeKay (35, p. 45).

Road-runner, snake-bird. Geococcyx calif orianus, eats small snakes,
Eliot (40, p. 162). Kills rattlesnakes, Myers (85, p. 2). Eats
snakes, Barbour (9, p. ); Cockerell (28). “Kills and eats rat-
tlesnakes", Saintleven (100).

Ground hornbill, Bucorax cafer , (Africa) eats snakes, Fitzsimons (43,
Vol. 2, p. 126) ; Ingersoll (65, p. 16).

Bush kingfisher, Halycon, eats snakes, Fitzsimons (43, Vol. 2, p. 24).

Laughing jackass, Dacelo gigas , eats snakes, Ingersoll (65, Vol. 2, p.
24) ; Wood (122, Vol. 2, p. 170).

Rollers, Coracias and Eurostomus, (Africa) eats snakes, Fitzsimons
(43, Vol. 2. p. 22).

Magpie, Pica pica hudsonica, killed a rattlesnake, Boulder Daily Cam-
era, Boulder, Colorado, June 4, 1895.

California jay, Aphelocoma californica, eats snakes, Beal (15).

Crow, Corvus brachyrhynchos, eats snakes, Barrows (11, pp. 424-425 ).
Harmless snakes, Barrows and Schwartz (10, pp. 49-50). Milk
snake, Lampropeltis, Wilson (121, p. 124).

Pied crow, Corvus scapulatus, (Africa) eats snakes, Fitzsimons (43,
Vol. 2, p. 1).

White-necked raven, ringhals, Corvulture albicollis, eats snakes, Fitz-
simons (43, Vol. 2, p. 1) ; Wilson (121, p. 124).

Cowbird, Molothrus ater , nestling ate garter snake, Friedmann (47,
p. 270).

Northern Shrike, Lanius borealis , eats snakes, Blanchan (17).

Loggerhead Shrike, Lanius ludovicianus , killed garter snake, ate
DeKay’s snakes, Storeria dekayi, Judd (67, pp. 100, 102). Eats
snakes, garter snake, Thamnophis sirtalis, and a snake of the
genus Lepthophis . impales snakes on barbed-wire fence, Judd (68,

p. 21).

White-rumped Shrike, Lanius ludovicianus excubitorides, eats snakes,
Cockerell (28).

Snakes vs. Birds: Birds vs. Snakes

105

Migrant Shrike, Lanius ludovicianus mi grans, eats small snakes, Bar-
rows (11, p. 563) .

Shrike attacked a snake, Gignoux (51, p. 75).

Shrikes ate scarlet snakes, Cemophora coccinea, Ditmars (36, p. 274).
Robin, Planesticus migratorius, ate garter snake, McIntosh (76, p.
152); Marshall (80, p. 304); Simpson (104). Fed garter snake
to nestling cowbird, Friedmann (47, p. 270).

Birds Eaten by Snakes

Massasauga, Sistrurus catenatus, eats young birds, Ditmars (37, p.
438). Probably small birds, Atkinson and Netting (3, p. 42);
Netting (88, p. 26).

Pigmy rattlesnake, Sistrurus miliarius, eats very young birds, Ditmars
(37, p. 436) ; Hurter (63, p. 212).

Banded or timber rattlesnake, Crotalus horridus, eats birds, Ditmars
(37, p. 446) ; Netting (88, p. 26) ; Morse (84, p. 138) ; Forbush
(44, p. 45) ; Hurter (63, p. 214). Small birds, Wood (122, Vol.
3, p. 101). An occasional bird, Stejneger (108, p. 432).
Rattlesnake (probably C. horridus ) ate field sparrow, Spizella pusilla ,
and young, Nauman (86, p. 331).

Prairie rattlesnake, Crotalus confluentus, eats birds, Ditmars (37, p.

457). Occasionally birds, Over (91, p. 29).

Diamond-back rattlesnake, ate a quail, Stoddard (110).

Western diamond-back rattlesnake, Crotalus atrox, eats birds, Ditmars

(37, p. 453).

Tiger rattlesnake, Crotalus tigris , eats birds, Ditmars (37, p. 460).
Copperhead, Agkistrodon mokasen , eats small birds, Ditmars (37, p.
424); Hay (56, p. 532). The smaller disabled birds, DeKay
(35, p. 54). Birds, Hurter (63, p. 207); Netting (88, p. 26).
Eggs and young, Forbush (44, p. 45). A sparrow, Surface (114
p. 189).

Cotton-mouth moccasin, Agkistrodon piscivorus , birds, Ditmars (36,
p. 322 and 37, p. 419). Green heron’s eggs, Ardea virescens ,
Howell (60, p. 103).

Fer-de-lance, Bolhrops atrox, coiled up in nest of bird whose eggs or
young it had devoured. Wood (122, Vol. 3, p. 98).

Puff adder, Bitis arietans, a large bird, Loveridge (73).

Viper, Pelias berus, eats birds, Wood (122, Vol. 3, p. 114); Palmer
and Westell (93, p. 288).

Viper (in Pomerania) found in nest under dead buzzard, Buteo vul-
garis, Cameron (26, p. 383).

106

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

Horned palm viper, Lachesis schlegelii, young birds, Ditmars (36,
p. 348).

Ringhals, Sipedon haemachates, (a South African cobra) birds and
eggs, New Internat. Encyc. (89).

Cobra de capello or hooded cobra, Naja tripudians, young poultry and
birds, New Internat. Encyc. (89).

Spitting cobra, Black-necked cobra, chickens, struck ben in nest-box,
Loveridge (73, pp. 109, 112).

Cobras, birds and eggs, Ditmars (36, p. 297).

Green mamba, Dendraspis angusticeps, probably killed black-bellied
bishop bird, Pyromelana nigriventris, on nest, Loveridge (73, p.
115).

Genus Elachistodon, especially fitted for egg-eating, Boulenger (22.
p. 393) ; Ingersoll (64, p. 57).

Egg-eater, Dasypeltis scabra, eggs and nestlings, Fitzsimons (43, Vol.
1, p. 240). Eggs, Wood (122, Vol. 3, p. 135) ; Forbush (41, p.
41).

Boomslang, Dispholidus typus, eggs, young and adults, Fitzsimons (43,
Vol. 1, p. 240 ) .

Boomslang, Bucephalus capensis , birds, Wood (122, p. 136).

Bird snake, Theltornis kirtlandii , eggs, young and adults, Fitzsimons
(43, Vol. 1, p. 240).

Spreading adder, Heterodon contortrix, bird. Netting (88, p. 26);
Surface (114, p. 185). Birds and eggs, Forbush (44, p. 45).

Western hognose, Heterodon nasicus, ate adult meadowlark, Branson
(23, p. 377).

Blacksnake, black racer, Coluber constrictor constrictor , birds, Ditmars
(36, p. 255). Birds and eggs, Ditmars (37, p. 282). Birds, eggs
and young, DeKay (35, p. 36). Birds 4% of food, birds’ eggs
4%, Surface (114, p. 169); Forbush (44, pp. 43-44). Catbird
eggs, Morris (83, p. 253); Spencer (106, p. 108). Young cat-
bird, Burroughs (24, pp. 27-30). Wren, quail eggs, Spencer (106,
p. 108). Young Florida blue jay, Nicholson (90, Vol. 29, p.
190). Young blue jay, Linsdale (72, p. 557). Small birds, adult
robin, Sto rer ( 112, p. 226).

Blue racer, Coluber constrictor flaviventris , eggs of red-wing black-
bird, Agelaius phoeniceus, in nest of cardinal, Cardinalis car-
dinalis , eggs of vireo, and of red-winged blackbird, Naurnan (86,
pp.330, 331). Eggs of bobwhite, Colinus virginianus, prairie
chicken, Tympanuchus arnericanus , and fowls, Morse (84, p. 128).
Birds and eggs, Wood (122, Vol. p. 132); Force (46, p. 31);
Netting (88, p. 26 ).

Snakes vs. Birds: Birds vs. Snakes

107

Racer, Coluber semilineatus, young Woodhouse jay, Cyunocitta ivood-
houseii , Stejneger (109, p. 155).

Coachwhip, Masticophis flagellum jrenatum , small birds, Ruthven (98,
p. 576).

Striped racer, Coluber lateralis , young house finch, Law (71, p. 179).
Racers, genus Zamensis, feed principally on mammals and birds,
Boulenger, G. A. (22, p. 323).

Coachwhip, Masticophis flagellum flagellum, English sparrows, Force
(46, p. 30). Birds and eggs, Ditmars (37, p. 287) ; Hurter (63, p.
173). Attacked a hawk, Wood (122, Vol. 3, p. 132).

Coachwhips, Masticophis, birds, Ditmars (37, p. 287) ; Ditmars (36,
p. 257). Young quail, Stoddard (110).

Dryophis prasinus, small birds, Boulenger, G. A. (22, p. 369).

Elaphe spiloicles , eggs of guinea fowl, Hurter (63, p. 182).

Emory’s coluber, Elaphe laeta, small birds, Ditmars (37, p. 299).

Davis Mountain coluber, Elaphe subocularis, small birds, Ditmars (37,
p. 300 ) .

Corn snake, Elaphe guttata , quail, two instances, Ditmars (37, pp.
301-302). Birds, Wood (122, Vol. 3, p. 130).

Pilot blacksnake, Elaphe obsoleta :, bens’ eggs, dickers, quail and other
birds, Hurter (63, p. 180). Killed a large horned owl in cap-
tivity, Blatchley (20). Birds and eggs, Branson (23, p. 388).
Birds’ eggs, chickens, robins, red-winged blackbirds, crow black-
bird, sparrows, eggs 2%, birds 28% of food. Surface (114, p.
161); Ditmars (37, p. 312); Forbush (45, p. 41); Netting (88,
p. 26). Canary, Touissant (116, p. 222). Barn swallows, can-
ary, Forbush (45, pp. 42-43).

Chicken snake, Elaphe obsoleta confinis, birds, young chickens and
eggs, Hurter (63, p. 181). Birds, Corrington (31, p. 73).

Lindheimer’s coluber, Elaphe obsoleta lindheimeri , hens’ eggs, Dit-
mars (37, p. 306). Contents of birds’ nests, Garman (50, p. 291).

Banded chicken snake, Elaphe quadrivitlata , chickens, hens' eggs, Dit-
mars (37, pp. 311-312). “Habit of stealing chickens from roost".
Wood (122, Vol. 3, p. 131).

Fox snake, Elaphe vulpinus, sparrows, birds and their eggs, Ditmars
(37, p. 298) ; Surface (114, p. 162). Eggs of common tern, Lyon
(75, p. 186); Williams (75, p. 186).

All culubers, birds and eggs, Ditmars (37, p. 294) ; Boulenger, G. A.
(22, p. 330 ).

Indigo snake, blue gopher snake, Drymarchon corais couperi , Ditmars
(37, p. 278).

108

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

Big cribo, Drymarchon corais melanurus, birds, Ditmars (37, p. 278).

Pine snake, Pituophis melanoleucus, birds, Surface (114, p. 171).
Birds and eggs, hens’ eggs, Ditmars (37, p. 318).

Bull snake, Pituophis sayi, birds and eggs, Hurter (63, p. 174). Birds
and bens’ eggs, Ditmars (37, p. 319). Birds, sparrows, pigeon’s
egg, Ruthven (97, p. 583); Branson (23, p. 360). Chewink and
eggs, Nauman (86, p. 330). Young chewinks. Over and Thoms
(92, p. 26). In wren’s nest, Seiler (103). English sparrows,
Force (46). Young blackbirds, Keller (69, p. ). Eggs of
Townsend’s solitaire, Hunter (62). Glass nest egg, Trine (117,
p. 4).

Speckled king snake, Lampropeltis getulus holhrooki , small birds,
Hurter (63, p. 185); Force (46, p. 32).

Common king or chain snake, Lampropeltis getulus getulus, sparrows,
Ditmars (36, p. 270, and 37, p. 362). Birds, a chipping sparrow,
Blanchard (19, p. 52). Birds, Wood (122, Vol. 3, p. 131).

Boyle’s king snake, Lampropeltis getulus boylii, contents of quails’
nests, Blanchard (19, p. 78); Van Denburgh (70, p. 172).

Brown king snake, mole snake, Lampropeltis rhombomaculata, young
birds, Ditmars (37, p. 355 ) ; Blanchard (19, p. 131).

Yellow-bellied king snake, Lampropeltis calligaster , young birds, Dit-
mars (37, p. 356) .

Milk snake, house adder, Lampropeltis triangulum triangulum, bird,
robin’s egg, Surface (114, pp. 178-179). Birds, cowbirds' eggs,
Blanchard (18, p. 48) ; Forbush (45, p. 44) ; Netting (88, p. 26).
Eggs of red-winged blackbird, Nauman (86).

Grass snake (European) birds, Palmer and Westell (93, p. 228).

Water snake, Natrix sipedon , eggs and young of marsh wrens and rails,
Forbush (45, p. 46).

Plains garter snake, Thamnophis radix, dead birds, Ruthven (97, p.
13).

Common garter snake, Thamnophis sirtalis, sparrow, Surface (114,
p. 149).

Garter snake, Thamnophis elegans, dead birds, Ruthven (97, p. 13).

Garter snakes, Thamnophis, birds, New Internat. Encyc. (89) ; Fledge-
ling birds, Ruthven (97, p. 13). Bobolink eggs, Gabrielson (48).
Young yellow warbler, Bigglestone (16). Eggs and young of
birds, Forbush (45, p. 45).

Rubber boa, Charina bottae, very small birds, Ditmars (37, p. 212).

Anaconda, Eunectes murinus, waterfowl. Netting (88, p. 26).

Boa constrictor, birds, Schmeil (102, p. 241).

Snakes vs. Birds: Birds vs. Snakes

109

Boas, family Boiclae , feathered creatures, Ditmars (36, p. 220) ; Net-
ting (88, p. 26).

Rock python, Python reticulatus, “two 8-pound roosters every ten or
twelve days”, Netting (88, p. 27).

Pythons, birds, Stebbing (107, p. 183) ; Boulenger, G. A. (22, p. 245) ;
Netting (88, p. 26) .

Snakes, robbed two nests of prothonotary warbler in Louisiana, Ganier
(49). Enemies of Bob-whites, Howell (60, p. 89) ; Catbird eggs,
Over and Tboms (92, p. 26).

References

1. Abbott, C. C. Naturalist’s rambles about home. Appleton. 1885.

2. Allen, A. A. Auk, 41. 1924, pp. 1-16.

3. Atkinson, D. A. and Netting, H. Graham. The distribution and
babits of the massasauga. Bull. Antiven. Inst., July, 1927.

4. Audubon, John James. Birds of North America.

5. Bailey, Florence Merriam. Handbook of the birds of Western
United States. Boston, Houghton, 4th Ed., 1914.

6. Bailey, Mrs. Mary L. The Wilson Bulletin, Dec., 1925, p. 221.

7. Baker, Frank C. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia, 41, 1889.

8. Baldwin, S. Prentiss. The Wilson Bulletin, 36, 1924, p. 103.

9. Barbour, Thomas. Reptiles and Amphibians.

10. Barrows, W. B. and Schwartz, E. A. The Common Crow of the
United States. Bull. 6, U. S. I). A. Div. Orn. and Mam., 1895:

11. Barrows, W. B. Michigan Bird Life. Special Bulletin, Midi
Agr. College, 1912.

12. Baskett, James Newton. The Story of the Birds. Appleton
New York, 1902.

13. Baynard, Oscar E. The Wilson Bulletin, 24, 1912, pp. 167-169.

14. Baynard, Oscar E. The Wilson Bulletin, 25, 1913, pp. 103-117.

15. Beal, F. E. L. U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. 34, 1910.

16. Bigglestone, Harry C. The Wilson Bulletin, 25, June, 1913.

17. Blanchan, Nellje. (Mrs. Doubleday). Bird Neighbors.

18. Blanchard, Frank N. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Douglas
Lake Region in Northern Michigan. Copeia, 1928.

19. Blanchard, Frank N. A revision of the king snakes, Genus
Lampropeltis , Smithsonian Inst., U. S. N. Museum Bull. 114, 1921.

20. Blatchley, W. S. Notes on the Batrachians and Reptiles of Vigo
County, Ind. 24th Ann. Rept. State Geologist, 1899.

21. Boulenger, E. G. Animal Mysteries. Macaulay.

110

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

22. Boulenger, Geo. A. Fauna of British India, Reptilia and Balra-
chia. London, 1890.

23. Branson, Edwin B. Snakes of Kansas. Kansas Univ. Science
Bull., Vol. 2, No. 13, 1904.

24. Burroughs, John. Wake-Robin.

25. Calm, Alvin R. Auk, 32, 1915, pp. 94-95.

26. Cameron, E. S. Swainson’s hawk in Montana. The Auk, 30, 1913.

27. Chapman, Frank M. Bird-Life. Appleton, 1903.

28. Cockerell. T. D. A. N. Mex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 37, 1901.

29. Cope, E. D. Crocodilians, lizards, and snakes. Ann. Rpt. Smith-
sonian Inst., 1898.

30. Cope, E. I). A critical review of the characters and variations of
the snakes of North America.

31. Corrington, Julian I). Copeia, No. 172, 1929.

32. Crimmins, Col. M. L. Rattlesnakes and their enemies in the
southwest. Bui. Antiv. Inst, of America, Vol. V, No. 2, 1931.

33. Daglish, Eric Fitch. The life story of birds. Morrow, New A ork.

34. Davie, Oliver. Nests and eggs of North American birds. 4th
Edition, 1889.

35. DeKay, James E. Zoology of New York, Part III.

36. Ditmars, Raymond L. Reptiles of the world.

37. Ditmars, Raymond L. The reptile book. Doubleday Page, 1922.

38. Dugmore, A. Radclyffe. Bird homes. Doubleday & McClure.
1900.

39. Eaton, Elon Howard. Birds of New York. N. Y. State Museum.
Mem. 12, 1914.

40. Eliot, Willard Ayres. Birds of the Pacific Coast. Putnam, 1923.

41. Finn, Frank. Bird behavior. New York, Dodd.

42. Fisher, A. K. Div. Orn. and Mamm. Bull. 3, 1893.

43. Fitzsimons, F. W. The natural history of South Africa, Birds,
Vols. I and II.

44. Forbush. Edward Howe. Useful birds and their protection. 1907.
p. 371.

45. Forbush, Edward Howe. The natural enemies of birds. Econ.
Biol. Bull. No. 3, Mass. State Board Agric., pp. 40-46.

46. Force, Edith R. The amphibians and reptiles of Tulsa County,
Oklahoma and vicinity. Copeia, 1930, No. 2.

47. Friedmann, Herbert. The Cowhirds. Springfield, 1929, pp. 259-
260.

48. Gabrielson, Ira N. Bird Lore, 24, p. 137.

49. Ganier, Albert F. Bird Lore, 2, 1900, p. 89.

Snakes vs. Birds: Birds vs. Snakes

111

50. Garman, H. A synopsis of the reptiles and amphibians of Illi-
nois. Bull. 111. State Lab. of Natural History, Vol. 3, 1892.

51. Gignoux, Claude. Shrike attacking snake. Condor, XXIX, 1927,
p. 75.

52. Gilmore, Esther E. Manuscript.

53. Gloyd, Howard Kay. The Wilson Bulletin, Sept., 1925, p. 141.

54. Greenwich Bird Protective Society, 1st Ann. Rpt. Greenwich,
Conn., 1915.

55. Guthrie, J. E. The snakes of Iowa. Agr. Exp. Sta. Iowa State
College, Bull. 239.

56. Hay, 0. P. The Batrachians and Reptiles of the State of Indiana.

57. Henderson, Junius. Practical value of birds, 1927, p. 227.

58. Holt, Ernest G. Copeia, Dec., 1929.

59. Howell, Arthur H. Birds of Arkansas. U. S. D. A. Biol. Surv.
Bull. 38, 1911.

60. H owell, Arthur H. Some game, birds, and fish of Alabama.
Dept of Game and Fisheries of Alabama, 1925.

61. Hume. Nests and eggs of Indian birds. 2nd Ed. V. 1.

62. Hunter, J. S. Osprey, IV, 1900, p. 173.

63. Hurter, Julius, Sr. The Herpetology of Missouri. Trans. Acad.
Sci. St. Louis, XX, 1911.

64. Ingersoll, Ernest. The wit of the wild. 1906.

65. Ingersoll, Ernest. Birds of Legend, Fable and Folklore. Long-
mans, 1923.

66. Jaeger, Edmund C. Denizens of the desert. Houghton, 1922.

67. Judd, Sylvester D. U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. 17, 1902.

68. Judd, Sylvester D. U. S. Biol. Surv. Bull. 9, 1898.

69. Keller, Mrs. E. J. N. 0. U. Letter of Information, No. 44, p. 8.

70. Klauber, L. M. Some observations on the rattlesnakes of the
extreme southwest. Bull. Antiven. Inst, of America, Vol. 1, No.
1, March, 1927.

71. Law, J. Eugene. Condor, 25, 1923, p. 179.

72. Linsdale, Jean M. Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., XVIII, No. 11, Apr.,
1928, p. 557.

73. Loveridge, A. Notes on snakes and snake-bites in East Africa.
Bull. Antiven. Inst, of America, April, 1928.

74. Lucas, A. H. S., and LeSouef, W. H. D. The Animals of Aus-
tralia. 1909.

75. Lyon, W. I. The Wilson Bulletin, 39, Sept., 1927, p. 186.

76. McIntosh, Franklin Gray. Bird Lore, 24, 1922, p. 152.

112

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

77. McAtee, W. L. Food habits of the mallard ducks of the United
States. U. S. D. A. Bull. 720, 1918.

78. McAtee, W. L. Nature Magazine. Feb., 1930, p. 113.

79. McLean, Donald D. The owls of California. Teachers' Bulletin,
Calif. Fish and Game Commission, No. 10, 1928.

80. Marshall, W. A. Bird Lore, 1921, p. 304.

81. Merrill, James C. Notes on the ornithology of southern Texas.
Proc. U. S. National Museum, 1878.

82. Mitchell. S. Weir. Researches on the venom of the rattlesnake.
Smithsonian Kept., 1860.

83. Morris, Robert T. Bird Lore, 27, 1925, pp. 253-254.

84. Morse, Max. Batrachians and reptiles of Ohio. Ohio State Univ.
Bull. Series 8, No. 18, 1904.

85. Myers, Harriet Williams. Western Birds. 2nd Ed. Rev. Mac-
millan, 1923.

86. Nauman, E. D. Bird Lore, XXXI, 1929, pp. 330-331.

87. Neff, Johnson A. Oologist, 29, 1924, pp. 117-118.

88. Netting, M. Graham. Cardinal, Vol. II, No. 2, July, 1927, pp.
25-29.

89. New International Encyclopedia. 2nd Ed.

90. Nicholson, Donald J. The Wilson Bulletin, 41, 1929; 42, 1930.

91. Over, William H. Amphibians and reptiles of South Dakota.
S. Dak. Geol. Nat. Hist. Surv., Bull. 12, 1893.

92. Over, William H. and Thoms, Craig S. Birds of South Dakota.
S. Dak. Geol. Nat. Hist. Surv. Series XXL No. 9, 1921.

93. Palmer, Ray, and Westell, W. Percival. Pests of garden, orchard,
farm, and forest. Drane, London, 1922.

94. Pearson, T. Gilbert. Birds of North Carolina by Brimley, C. S.
and Brimley, H. H.

95. Pycraft, W. P. A history of birds. Methuen & Co., London. 1910.

96. Roddy, J. Hustin. Feeding habits of some young Raptores. The
Auk, V. 1888.

97. Ruthven, Alevander G. Variations and genetic relationships of
the garter snakes. Smithsonian Inst., U. S. N. Museum, Bull. 61.

98. Ruthven, Alexander G. A collection of reptiles and amphibians
from southern New Mexico and Arizona. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist.,
Vol. 23, 1907.

99. Ruthven, Alexander G. The reptiles of Michigan. Mich. Geol.
Biol. Surv. Publ. No. 10, 1912.

100. Saintleven, August. A Texas Pioneer. (Quoted by Crimmins
(32).

Snakes vs. Birds: Birds vs. Snakes

113

101. Schaeffer, J. Parsons. Bird Lore, 8, 1906, PP. 137-8.

102. Schmeil, Otto. Introduction to Zoology. A. and C. Black, Lon-
don, 1901.

103. Seiler, Lydia Joanna. Bird Lore, 29, 1927, p. 189.

104. Simpson, R. B. Oologist, 29, 1912, p. 402.

105. Smith, Francis Gow. The snake, Brazil’s national problem.
World’s Work, 1926.

106. Spencer, Hugh. Bird Lore, 30, 1928, pp. 108-110.

107. Stebbing, Edward Percy. A Manual of Forest Zoology for India.
Government Printing, Calcutta, 1908.

108. Stejneger, Leonhard. The poisonous snakes of North America.
Rept. U. S. Nat. Mus. for 1893.

109. Stejneger, Leonhard. The reptiles of the Huachuca Mts., Ari-
zona. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., XXV, 1902.

110. Stoddard, Herbert L. Pro gress on Cooperative Quail Investiga-
tions, 1924.

111. Strecker, John K. On the use, by birds, of snakes’ sloughs as
nesting material. The Auk, 1926, pp. 501-507.

112. Storer, I). Humphreys. Reptiles of Massachusetts. Zoological
and Botanical Survey, Mass., 1839.

113. Stull, Olive Griffith. A revision of the genus Tropidophis.
Occasional Papers, Univ. of Mich., No. 195, Oct. 1, 1928.

114. Surface, H. A. The serpents of Pennsylvania. Penn. State Dept,
of Agr. Monthly Bulletin, IV, 4 and 5, 1906.

115. Thorburn, Archibald. British Birds, Vol. II.

116. Touissant, Mrs. L. H. The Bluebird, Vol. VII, No. 8, May, 1915.

117. Trine, Mrs. George. N. O. U. Letter of Information, No. 50, p. 4.

118. Van Denburgh, John. The reptiles of the Pacific Coast and Great
Basin. Occ. Papers, Calif. Acad. Sci., Vol. V, p. 172.

119. Whitaker. Birds of Tunisia. London, 1905, Vol. 1.

120. Wilson, Alexander, and Bonaparte, Charles Lucian. American
Ornithology.

121. Wilson, Ralph R. Bird Lore, XXV, 1923, p. 124.

122. Wood, J. G. Illustrated Natural History. Routledge, 1869, Vols.
2 and 3.

Department of Zoology. Iowa State College,

Ames, Iowa

THE WILSON BULLETIN

Published at Sioux City, Iowa, by the Wilson Ornithological Club.

The present editorial organization is as follows: T. C. Stephens, Editor-in-

Chief, Sioux City, Iowa; Myron H. Swenk, University of Nebraska, Lincoln,
Nebraska; Albert F. Ganier, Nashville, Tennessee; Alfred M. Bailey, Chicago
Academy of Sciences, Chicago, Illinois; R. D. Hissong, Sioux City, Iowa.

The subscription price in the United States is $1.50 a year, and 50 cents a
number; in all other countries of the International Postal Union the price is
$1.75 a year, and 60 cents a number. Subscriptions and orders for single copies
should be addressed to the Secretary, Dr. Jesse M. Shaver, Peabody College,
Nashville, Tennessee, U. S. A.

EDITORIAL

The Nineteenth Annum. Meeting of the Wilson Ornithological Club will
be held at Columbus, Ohio, on the three days following Thanksgiving Day, Novem-
ber 25, 26, 27, 1932. The sessions will be held on the campus of the Ohio State
University, in the auditorium of the Ohio State Museum. The program will
occupy Friday and Saturday. For Sunday a field trip is planned, with Buckeye
Lake as the destination. The Christmas census last year yielded seventy-four
species within a half-mile of the shore of this lake. The Wheaton Bird Club, of
Columbus, will act as host. The Henninger collection of birds and the Bale
collection of eggs will be features of interest. With the large Club membership
in Ohio and adjacent states, this meeting may be expected to have a splendid
program and a large attendance.

As Is Known to most of our readers President Shaver has been making a
strong effort to increase our income this year so that there may be a minimum
reduction in the size of our magazine. The response so far has been very en-
couraging, though everyone realizes, of course, that the problem is a serious one.
Two of our members, Mrs. Carll Penwood Tucker and Mr. E. A. Mclllhenny,
have become life members. Others have contributed by changing their member-
ship classification to a higher rank, and several have made cash contributions.
A few authors are proposing to make contributions towards the cost of publishing
papers. All of these aids are gratefully appreciated by the officers, and will help
to carry us through. The officers are determined to avoid any deficit.

General Notes

115

GENERAL NOTES

Conducted by M. H. Swenk

An Early Arrival of the Bobolink in Indiana. — On March 13, 1032, dur-
ing a hurried trip to Ohio, as dusk approached and we were driving rapidly, we
saw a lone Bobolink ( Dolichonyx oryzivorus) fly up and across the road into a
field. I could not understand how that bird could be in this part of the country
at that early date, for I never previously had seen it before May 4, with one
exception. It generally is found, according to my past records for ten years,
between May 4 and June 13, although these dates may not be those of first
arrival. One year (1924), the Bobolink was seen April 6. That was my earliest
record before this year. But we have had unusual winters the past two years,
hardly knowing winter had been with us. 1 believe the Bobolink had come upon
the heels of the mild winter, before it knew it was not yet time for migration.
As a rule these birds come in (locks, as I have seen fifty or more males together
before they separate, making it evident, as with some other migrants, that the
males come first together. The Robins do this, the males appearing about two
or three weeks before the females. Many different varieties arrive together, then
separate. 1 have seen the Bronzed Grackles, Starlings, and others all feeding on
the ground together in the early spring. Warblers and other small migrants do
the same. Birds of many varieties collect together in the fall before returning
to the south, but when they are nesting they will have nothing to do with the
other birds of various species. — Mrs. Horace P. Cooic, Anderson, Ind.

Further Comment on the Nesting of the Blue-gray Gnatcatcher. —

I have read with much interest the note of Mrs. Horace P. Cook, of Anderson,
Indiana, (Wilson Bulletin, XLIV, p. 45), on the nesting of the Blue-gray Gnat-
catcher ( Polioptila caerulea caerulea) . In more than forty years of observation
I have never seen a nest of this species in a location other than on top of a
horizontal limb. I have found them placed as Mrs. Cook describes, on top of
the lower fork of a limb that branched vertically, so that the upper fork fur-
nished some protection to the nest. Also, I have frequently noticed that the nests
of both gnatcatchers and Ruby-throated Hummingbirds usually disappear in whole
or in part soon after the young leave them, and the following incident suggests
a reason.

I had located a Blue-gray Gnatcatcher’ s nest about thirty feet up in a slender
oak, and a few days after the young had left it I went to the place to collect it.
After shinning about two-thirds of the way up to the nest, I paused on a limb to
catch my breath. In less than a minute a gnatcatcher came to the nest, and with
much twittering began to pull material out of it. She soon had a hill lull and
flew away to the south. Thoroughly interested, I waited, and in a few minutes
she returned and carried away another bill full of material.

I came down and followed her line of flight directly to where she was build-
ing a new nest. I had no means of knowing whether or not it was the same bird
building a second nest from the materials of a first nest. — John B. Lewis,
Amelia , V a.

Ground-Nesting Birds. — Two very unusual records of ground-nesting birds
have come under my observation, one of the Eastern Mourning Dove (Zenaidura
macroura carolinensis) and the other of the Brown Thrasher ( Toxostoma ritfum).
In June, 1929, in crossing a field, 1 found where an Eastern Mourning Dove had

116

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

placed a few sticks to form a frail nest, which contained two white eggs, under a
small overhanging tree, in the niche of the bank of a tiny stream. At New
Vienna, in 1900, 1 found a Brown Thrasher’s nest on the ground protected by a
pile of osage-orange brush. In this section all of the early nestings of the Eastern
Song Sparrow (Melospiza m. melodia ) and of the Red-eyed Towhee ( Pi fit l o e.
erythropthalmus ) are placed on the ground. The second nests of the season of
the Eastern Song Sparrow are placed from two to ten feet up, in weeds, shrubs,
and small trees. The Red-eyed Towhee most generally builds a couple of feet
high in a shrub for its second nesting. An exception to this was the placing of a
nest on a corn stalk where the leaf-blade joined the stalk, about three feet from
the ground. — Katie M. Roads, Hillsboro, Ohio.

A Flight of Franklin’s Gulls in Northwestern Iowa. — On September 17,
1931, I noticed about one hundred Franklin’s Gulls ( Lams pipixcan ) resting in
a compact group on Medium Lake, just north of Emmetshnrg, Palo Alto County,
Iowa. This was at 9 A. m. They arose and seemed to leave the lake soon after.
The rest of the day I spent looking over game range in Palo Alto, northwestern
Kossuth, and eastern Emmet Counties. Over almost all this territory there was a
continuous body of gulls, evidently feeding on some flying insect.

Until evening the birds were flying at heights of fifty to one hundred yards.
Toward evening they gradually grew lower, until at 5 p. m. they were on or near
the ground level. At the same time my car began to pass through insects. Evi-
dently the insects themselves had changed the level of their flight. Samples were
collected and submitted to Carl Drake, State Entomologist, for identification.
Unfortunately the specimens were mashed in the mails, so that the species could
not be determined. Dr. Drake wrote me they were llea-beetles of some kind. This
flea-beetle was evidently the attraction for the gulls.

The flight of gulls was observed over an area covering a total of four town-
ships in Palo Alto, five in Kossuth, and four in Emmet Counties, a total of thir-
teen townships. It may have been actually much larger. On the other hand, the
gulls may have accidentally followed our route of travel, and thus not actually
covered thirteen townships. The density is estimated to have ranged from one
to two hundred gulls to forty acres. Assuming that it covered ten townships and
that the density averaged two gulls to forty acres, the total number of gulls
would have been about thirty to the section, 1,100 to the township, or 11,000
gulls on the observed area. The density probably averaged much more than two
gulls to forty acres.

Frank Marnette of Arnold’s Park, Kossuth County, Iowa, a competent ob-
server, tells me that these inland flights of Franklin’s Gulls are a regular autumnal
phenomenon, but that in his county eveiy individual returns each evening to Spirit
Lake to roost — Aldo Leopold, Madison, Wis.

The Philadelphia Vireo Near Nashville, Tennessee — On September 18.
1931, I was studying migrant warblers and vireos near my camp, Rirds-I-View.
some ten miles east of Nashville, Tennessee, when my attention was directed to the
song of a bird about twenty feet away in an elm tree. Its notes were rather
like those of a Red-eyed Vireo hut more melodious, less continuous, and at times
suggestive ol the notes of the Purple Finch. Since vireos had practically ceased
to sing 1 watched this bird very carefully as he moved sluggishly around just
above my head. To my surprise there was a pale yellow color to the entire
breast; and there were no wing bars as in the case of the White-eyed Vireo and

General Notes

117

the Yellow-throated Vireo. Nor was it large enough for ihe Mountain Vireo.
On consulting Chapman, 1 found that its markings, song, and habits corresponded
exactly to those ol the Philadelphia Vireo ( Vireo philadelphicus) .

On September 19 it was near the same tree but did not sing. Mr. A. F.
Ganier attempted to collect a similar bird at this spot on September 20, but it was
lost in the rank weeds. Nearly a week later I tried to take a specimen of this
bird some hve hundred yards farther south but was unsuccessful. The first bird,
I am satisfied, was the Philadelphia Vireo; but in the other three instances there
was no song to confirm the markings. My feeling now is that this species is more
oiten to be found than records show and next spring all suspicious vireos will
be given careful scrutiny. Perhaps wc car add other records t( the lone record ol
Allison at Grand Junction, in west Tennessee, April 16, 1904. — George R. May-
field, Nashville, Term.

The 1931 Fall Migration at Cleveland’s Public Square. — This year’s fall
migration at the Public Square in Cleveland was not as productive in my observa-
tion as the past two years.

In the period from September 11 to December 28 I was successful in finding
sixteen species of native birds. During this stretch of 108 days I visited the
Square 83 days and found one or more birds on all but two days. The weather
■was uniformly favorable, with the temperature consistently above freezing, except
for a brief cold snap with snow in the closing days of November. The temperature
was frequently far above normal, reaching 63° on December 24, and nearly to
that mark on several occasions. My records are as follows:

No. oj Largest No.

Species First Record Last Record Days Seen in One Day

Sparow Hawk...

Sept. 1 1

Oct. 28

4

1

Herring Gull

Oct. 29

Dec. 15

2

7

Whip-poor-will

Oct. 9

1

1

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Sept. 28

1

1

Golden-crowned Kinglet...

Oct. 9

1

1

Ruby-crowned Kinglet

Sept. 28

Sept. 30

2

1

Magnolia Warbler

Sept. 16

1

1

Black-poll Warbler.

Sept. 12

Sept. 17

3

2

Northern Yellowthroat

Sept. 16

Sept. 21

4

4

Redstart

Sept. 12

1

1

Savannah Sparrow

Sept. 16

Sept. 17

2

2

White-crowned Sparrow

Oct. 7

Nov. 17

13

4

White-throated Sparrow..

Sept. 16

Dec. 28

75

14

Tree Sparrow

Novell

Nov. 24

8

1

Song Sparrow

Sept. 21

Dec. 11

37

3

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

Sept. 16

1

3

Most of these visitors are becoming familiar to me at the Square, but several
of them were newcomers, notably the Whip-poor-will, Yellow-hellied Sapsucker,
and Magnolia Warbler. The Whip-poor-will spent the day on the ledge of my
office window, a windy day with the temperature around 55°. The bird showed no
sign of injury, but seemed very weak. It exhibited no great fear of faces not
more than a foot away on the other side of the window, rocking nervously when
some one tapped on the glass. October 9 is some three weeks later than the
usual time of departure for this species, and several cool days probably had made
serious inroads on the bird’s food supply. Three Rose-breasted Grosbeaks ap-
peared together in the plane trees surrounding Tom Johnson’s statue one day,
all in the streaked plumage of the female or immature. White-throated Sparrows

118

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

occurred in smaller numbers than in past years but persisted later than pre-
viously. The Yellow-bellied Sapsucker worked on the trunk of a plane tree on a
level with my eyes, not more than five feet away.

It is interesting to note that the Starlings were more numerous than ever and
have stayed through the winter, coming in from the edge of the city every evening
to roost on the cornices and string courses of buildings around the Square. Some
observers have estimated that there are at least 15,000 Starlings roosting within
a block of the Square, yet it is seldom that one is seen during the day. — William
H Watterson, Cleveland, Ohio.

The Former Occurrence of the Mississippi Kite in Ohio. — In a consider-
erable quantity of bones of birds from archeological excavations in Jackson
County, Ohio, submitted to the National Museum for identification by the Ohio
State Museum, I found two humeri of the Mississippi Kite ( Ictinia misisippiensis) ,
a species that has not been reported from Ohio previously, so far as I am aware.
The bones in question were secured in Canter’s caves, located about five miles
northwest of t he town of Jackson, in Jackson County, Ohio.1 The caves in ques-
tion are two rock shelters called Echo and Indian caves, respectively, located on
the east side of Little Salt Creek, in a conglomerate many feet above the present
stream level. The kite bones were associated with numerous other bird remains
and quantities of human artifacts accompanied by several human skeletons.

Vol. 37, Jan., 1928, pp. 4-21, figs. 1-14.

The bird bones are in good condition and well preserved, all tendons and
other tissues having disappeared. Their age is indefinite but probably dates back
several hundred years. In the report cited in the accompanying footnote it is
stated (p. 32) that “it seems indubitable that for the most part the occupants
of the rock shelters of southern Ohio, in so far examined, were the Algonquian
tribesmen of pre-Columbian and proto-historic times.”

Nineteen species of birds were identified from the remains from Canter’s
Caves, including in addition to the Mississippi Kite bones of the Mallard, Blue-
winged Teal, Ring-necked Duck, Lesser Scaup Duck, Wood Duck, Swallow-tailed
Kite, Duck Hawk, Ruffed Grouse, Prairie Chicken, Bobwhite, Turkey, Passenger
Pigeon, Barred Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, Flicker, Raven, Crow, and Crackle
(Quiscalus) .

One humerus of the Mississippi Kite has been presented to the U. S. National
Museum, the other being retained by the Ohio State Museum. — Alexander Wet-
more, U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C.

A Large Flock of Bank Swallows Near Toledo, Ohio. — Most of my
readers are familiar with the great gatherings of swallows in late summer. Some-
times these conventions are of Bank Swallows, sometimes of Tree Swallows, or,
too rarely in these days, of Barn Swallows.

Because ol their proximity to the lake marshes, Toledo and its suburbs ex-
tending to the east play host to varying numbers of swallows each year. Up to
1931 the greatest flock 1 had ever witnessed was a flight of about 10,000 Bank
Swallows ( Riparia riparia) seen on July 15, 1928. This year, probably as the
result of the drying up of all inland ponds, Bank Swallows were unusually com-
mon. The greatest number appeared on August 8, 1931, when the Little Cedar
Point marsh, about ten miles or so east of Toledo, was visited by a huge flock of
Bank Swallows, the number of which I estimated to be more than 250,000.

'For an account of these sites see Shetrone, H. C., Ohio Arch. Hist. Quart.,

Ornithological Literature

119

Even as I write this I seem to see thousands of eyebrows lifted in doubt,
and I seem to hear scornful sniffs from every side. Two hundred and fifty thou-
sand! Who counted them? Here was the situation: Along the west side of

the Little Cedar Point property, between the marsh and Maumee Bay, a stone
road bordered by large trees leads up to the clubhouse. Millions of gnats which
had bred in the swamp rested on these trees during the day and swarmed forth in
great clouds at dusk. These myriads of insects attracted Bank Swallows to such
an extent that they formed a group about one mile long, measured by the
speedometer, and 1,000 feet in width. The density of most of this constantly mov-
ing mass was almost unbelieveable. The scene resembled nothing more than a
highly magnified section of the swarms of gnats upon which the birds fed. Mingled
with the Bank Swallows were a few hundred Tree Swallows and Barn Swallows,
Starlings, and a flock of Common and Black Terns.

The mathematics of the case is quite simple: Allowing each swallow twenty

square feet, without making any allowance for the additional number resulting
from figuring the third dimension also involved, 5,000 times 1,000 equals 5,000,000
gives the very conservative estimate of 250,000. Actually there may have been
nearly a million.

This congregation marked the climax of the flight, although large flocks were
seen both before and after that date, roosting on telephone wires along the road-
side. This habit of roosting makes estimating numbers a very easy task for the
observer. The count for the entire season is: July 12 — 100; July 18 — 200;

July 26 — 3,000; August 2 — 8,000; August 8 — 250,000; August 15 — 30,000; August
23 — 50,000; August 30 — 500; September 7 — 50; and September 13 — 8. — Louis W.
Campbell, Toledo , Ohio.

ORNITHOLOGICAL LITERATURE

Florida Bird Life. By Arthur H. Howell. Published by the Florida Department
of Game and Fresh Water Fish, in cooperation with the Bureau of Biological
Survey, United States Department of Agriculture. 1932. Pp. i-xxiv-(-l-579.
Pis. 1-58 (37 in color). Figs. 1-72 (mostly maps). Price, $6.00 (to be
ordered from the Department of Game and Fresh Water Fish, Tallahassee,
Fla.).

The new year in ornithological literature opened with the distribution in
January of Howell’s “Florida Bird Life”. This is another large, single volume,
somewhat comparable with Bailey’s “Birds of New Mexico”, and also prepared
through the cooperation of the United States Biological Survey. To make the
comparison go further, this volume is also published through the generosity of a
patron, Marcia Brady Tucker, of New York. The latter fact should he em-
phasized in order to express our gratitude and also as an example to others who
may be philanthropically inclined toward science.

The text of this new work opens with a very full historical account of Florida
ornithology. It seems to us that this is one of the most important parts of a
work of this kind. There is also a section listing all of the birds which have
been described from specimens taken in Florida, of which there are 82— a con-
siderable number. The history of bird protection in the state makes a separate
chapter written by Mr. Robert W. Williams. A chapter each on physiographic
regions and life zones then brings us to the catalogue proper. The latter treats

120

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

423 forms, including 362 species and 61 additional subspecies. The routine ac-
count of each species includes statements on recognition marks, range, Florida
distribution, haunts and habits, and food. Supplementing the text there are many
state maps (about 71 of them) masked to show the distribution of a given species
within the state. This we regard as the most valuable single feature of the
book, even though the information may be incomplete in some cases.

Besides the text figures (maps) already mentioned, the chapter on life zones
contains an inserted colored map ol the state showing the distribution of life
zones. Of the fifty-eight plates twenty-one are in black, and are reproduced from
photographs by various artists. The remaining plates are in color and are re-
produced from paintings by Francis L. Jaques. It has been the avowed intention
of the artist to group his subjects together according to their habitat, rather
than according to their relationships. This seems to be an innovation in tbe
composition of modern bird pictures. We are not sure that we like it quite as
well. Perhaps it leads the artist to give too much emphasis to the landscape,
resulting in a corresponding reduction in the bird portraits. Most of the water
bird plates are composed in this style, while the shore birds and land birds have
been shown in the conventional way. Our preference would be for the shore bird
plates. Possibly this is because we feel that the artist has been more successful
in portraying the resting bird than the one in flight.

Mr. Howell is so well known through his connection for thirty-five years with
the United States Biological Survey and his authorship of the "Birds of Arkansas”
and the “Birds of Alabama”, that the authenticity of the text may be accepted
at face value. One by one the states are putting out their ornithological treatises
in a sumptuous style hitherto almost unthought of; and made possible, doubtless,
by the very great and widespread interest in the study of bird life. With these
beautiful descriptive works now available, we are forced to reflect on the calamity
which will befall the human world in each instance of extermination of these
interesting creatures. It seems certain that each succeeding human generation
will regard its bird life with increasing curiosity and concern. The present gen-
eration indeed owes much to the future in this matter.

A bibliography covering seventy-nine pages is probably quite complete, and
is correspondingly valuable. A list of biographical references to students of
Florida birds is a novel feature. — T. C. S.

Handbook of Birds of Eastern North America with Introductory Chapters
on the Study of Birds in Nature. By Frank M. Chapman. Second re-
vised edition. Published by D. Appleton and Company, New York, 1932.
Pp. i-xxxvi (- 1-581. Pis. 1-XXIX, figs. 1-166. Price, $5.00.

This book, the second contribution of tbe year to American ornithological
literature, is the same “Handbook” as of other years, but modified to conform to
the new A. O. U. Check-List in nomenclature and sequence. The Handbook has
been in use so long and is so well known, that it is sufficient merely to announce
the revised edition. Except for the new names and the altered sequence we see
very little change from the last edition. The new edition contains, nevertheless,
fifty-one pages more than the former one. There is the same preliminary study of
“the bird”, making an excellent practical introduction to ornithological knowl-
edge, the value of which is enhanced by generous reference to other literature.

Ornithological Literature

121

The bibliographical appendix is a most valuable portion ol the book, and has
been brought up to date in this last edition.

The older editions of this book are still good for identifications, but for
technical names and sequence they will lead the student astray in many cases.
It may be truthfully said that Chapman’s Handbook is the lineal successor to
Coues' Key; perhaps not so indispensable to the student as was the Key, because
of the abundance of good bird literature now available in these modern days.
Yet, every earnest student of birds requires a descriptive manual with keys deal-
ing with all the birds of the larger territory in which his interest lies. The
Handbook now meets this need in an admirable way. An interval of thirty-one
years elapsed between the first and the last (5th) edition of Coues’ Key. Now
thirty-seven years have already passed between the first and the present edition
of Chapman's Handbook, and it seems to be destined for many more years of
usefulness. — T. C. S.

Effectiveness in Nature of the So-called Protective Adaptations in the

Animal Kincdom, Chiefely as Illustrated by the Food Habits of Nearc-

tic Birds. By W. L. McAtee. Smithson. Misc. Coll., Vol. 85, No. 7, pp.

1-201. Washington, D. C., 1932.

In the days before Darwin developed the theory of natural selection, color
in animals was generally looked upon as accidental and non-significant. As the
selection principal became better understood color patterns were interpreted as
adaptive, i. e., protective. Some color patterns were explained as concealing in
effect, so that natural enemies were prevented from finding and devouring the
possessor. Other color patterns were regarded as revealing in effect, but were
supposed to confuse or frighten away the predator. In all these cases of protec-
tive color adaptation the result was to preserve or “select” the possessor and allow
him to reproduce. There is a discrimination in nature, therefore, in favor of those
animals which possess some color or other protective adaptation. This is the
principle of natural selection, briefly stated. Through this principle of selection
the color pattern, often a specific characteristic, was believed to have originated
and to have become perfected. Thus it became a method of evolution.

Mr. McAtee questions whether nearctic birds actually practice any discrimi-
nation in the capture of food animals because ol the latter’s possession of color
pattern or other so-called protective adaptation. If these protective adaptations
are serviceable to the owners there should be what might be called a differential
death rate among them. And if there is such a difference in the death rate
among the food animals of birds it should be discoverable in the stomach con-
tents of birds. The author undertakes to show that most animals are used as
food by nearctic birds (and presumably the rule will apply in general) in pro-
portion to their abundance, regardless of “protective adaptations”. In order to
show this he finds the estimated totals oi animals in each phylum, and then the
percentage of species in each phylum to the whole number of species. For in-
stance, there are estimated to be 418,250 species of arthropods, which is 74.6188
per cent of all known species of animals. Then it is found that from 80,000 bird
stomachs examined in the U. S. Biological Survey since 1885, 237,399 species of
animals have been identified. For instance, 210,752 species of arthropods were
identified, which amounts to 88 7751 per cent of the whole number identified. The
approximation of these two percentages is interpreted as indicating that the food

122

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

is taken at random and in proportion to abundance — not by selection of un-
protected forms.

The several phyla are then examined by the same method, and a very strong
case is made against color and other supposed protective adaptations, and for the
theory of indiscriminate capture. The author says, “Within size limits, animals
of practically every kind accessible to birds are preyed upon, and as we consider
the records for group after group a tendency for the number of captures to be in
proportion to the abundance of the animals concerned is unmistakable. Avail-
ability undoubtedly is the chief factor involved in the choice of food, and preda-
tion therefore tends to be in proportion to the population.”

Our experience, derived from field observation without statistical measure-
ment, leads us to acquiesce in the view that “predation tends to be in proportion
to population”. But a count of species is one thing and a population of indi-
viduals is something quite different. Birds are prone to feed heavily upon a
species when it is at a numerical maximum or in a state or irruption. This
excess of one insect species upon which birds may easily satisfy their appetities
doubtless protects another species more than any color pattern which the latter
may possess. We predict, however, that selectionists will not docilely yield ground
which they have held, almost without dispute, for a generation. Mr. McAtee is
boldly attacking a fundamental and far-reaching problem. — T. C. S.

What Bird Is That? A Guide to the Birds of Australia. By Neville W.

Cayley. Published by Angus & Robertson, Ltd., 89 Castlereagh St., Sydney,

Australia. 1931. Pp. i-xx-(-l-319. Col. Pis. I-XXXVI, halftones, 14. Price,

12/6.

It is seldom that we are privileged to review a bird book from the other side
of the ocean, and we are glad to present this particular one to our readers. The
book is organized around the thirty-six colored plates. Each plate shows diminu-
tive figures of a number of birds, varying from ten to thirty. A section, or chap-
ter, of the text is then devoted to the description of these figures on the accom-
panying plate. The sequence of species is not systematic, but rather ecologic.
That is, species are grouped on the plates (also in the text) according to their
habitats. While this plan of arrangement varies from the usual custom, we can
not see that the scientific value of the book is lessened in the least, while its use-
fulness is probably increased. In this way the book pictures in color and de-
scribes 708 species of native Australian birds. And many of the plates show the
female in addition to the male.

The text does not describe the plumage, since the figures are amply descrip-
tive for ordinary identification; the text does, however, treat of the distribution,
nest, eggs, food, song, habitat, etc. Furthermore, the text is not burdened with
subspecies; and thus we have an example of a perfectly scientific and usable
treatise based upon the species concept alone. How conservative and sensible
the Australians are in this matter!

The outstanding feature of the book is the colored plates, which are also the
work of the author. The large number of portraits placed on each plate precludes
the use of any background. Nothing is shown but the bird in perching or stand-
ing posture. And while the figure is necessarily small, it is clear and distinct,
and is as adequate for identification as a larger one would be. Considering the

Ornithological Literature

123

large number of species illustrated and the preciseness of the coloring, even in
such small figures, we are bound to regard the book as a marked success.

The book is sponsored by tbe Gould League of Bird Lovers of New South
Wales. We are astonished in reading that the League has a membership of six
hundred thousand. In view of this fact, however, it is not surprising that the
first edition of 3,500 copies was exhausted within the month of publication
(December, 1931), and that a second edition was promptly issued. It may be
worth mentioning that the publishers have also on their list a book on the snakes
of Australia, and one on the Platypus, and we have no doubt that many college
libraries in this country will have special need for the latter work, at least
(at 10/6).— T. C. S.

The Birds of Louisiana. Bulletin No. 20, Louisiana State Department of Con-
servation. Pp. 1-598. Distributed by the Department of Conservation, 126
N. O. Court Building, New Orleans. Price, 25 cents. Free to residents of
Louisiana

The first thing to be noticed about this work is its anonymity. In general
people prefer to read from a known author, to say nothing of the justice of giving
credit to the author. On page 522 this remark is made: “If one were forced
to have only one favorite among the many appealing and beautiful warblers, the
Hooded Warbler would be mine.” This is probably an unedited reminder of the
unknown author’s role. The introduction gives some credit to Mi-. Stanley C.
Arthur, but there is no way of knowing, from the text, to what extent Mr. Arthur
is responsible for the preparation of the work. In the “History of the Pelican
Seal” of Louisiana we think we recognize Mr. Arthur’s workmanship. However,
it is difficult to understand the desire to suppress the authorship of a work which
would otherwise be a credit to the State. It is also unfortunate that the numerous
illustrations are not credited to either an artist or to previous publications.

One is much puzzled at first with the key of families of perching birds
(pp. 394-395) until it is discovered that the printer has paragraphed the family
name with the description below rather than the one above, simply by a mis-
placement of spacing. In most cases the treatment of a species is accorded a
heading, but in some cases this is omitted. Apparently, the slight is given to
some birds because they do not nest in, or visit frequently, the area under
consideration.

The text contains many interesting and descriptive comments on the habits
of our common birds in the southland. Special attention is given to the various
vernacular names, and in many instances the origin or meaning of both vernacular
and scientific names is given, often to the enlightenment of the experienced
reader. A curious mixture of ornithological and editorial Latin, found on page
384 (and several other places), gives the scientific name of the Pileated Wood-
pecker as Phloeotomus pileatus stet. — trinomialism inadvertently carried too far!
Perhaps after all the author will be happier with the omission of his name from
a work over which he had lost editorial control. However, notwithstanding these
criticisms we are compelled to admit that in no other instance have we seen so
much information on birds given for so little money. — T. C. 8.

124

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

The Physiology of Development of Feathers. I. Growth-Rate and Pattern
in the Individual Feather. By Frank R. Lillie and Mary Juhn. Reprinted
from Physiol. Zook, Vol. V, No. 1, Jan. 1932. Pp. 124-184, pis. I-\ 111.

This paper is based on studies conducted under the auspices of the Whitman
Laboratory of Experimental Zoology, at the University of Chicago. The text
reports on two main lines of investigation, namely, the feather development and
the experimental modification of feather type and pattern. The studies were
made on the Brown Leghorn fowl, which has been the subject of study by the
authors for eight years. While barnyard fowls do not make a strong appeal to
nature lovers, yet they serve just as well for the study of biological problems,
and the principles discovered may then be applied to wild birds in general. To
facilitate their experimental work the authors found it necessary to go into the
matter of regenerative development of the feather germ after plucking or normal
molting. It may be sufficient to say that the mode of development of the feather
is restated clearly, and with new facts and figures. The experimental work con-
sisted of injecting the birds with thyroxin and female sex hormone. It was found
that varying quantities of these hormones produced alteration in the color pattern
of the growing feather — usually in the form of bars. The general trend of the
work seems to be an analysis of the cause of color pattern in terms of physiologi-
cal factors. Asymmetry in structure and color of feathers is briefly discussed. A
more difficult experimental problem will be that of composite plumage color
pattern. — T. C. S.

Bums of Polk County, Iowa. By Philip A. DuMont. Published by the Des

Moines Audubon Society, 1931. Pp. 1-72. Price, 50 cents.

Besides the list of 289 species this paper gives a bibliography of twenty-two
titles which deal more or less directly with the birds of Polk County. Perhaps
this list is not complete, for we can name offhand three titles not in the list.
Oberholser reported (1902) a specimen of Otocoris alpestris praticola from Polk
County; Smith (1914) mentioned the Florida Gallinule in Polk County; and
Bailey (1917) referred to a specimen of the supposed dark subspecies (iowensis)
of the Broad-winged Hawk taken in Polk County. This specimen is mentioned
in the catalogue, but the 1917 paper is overlooked. The author was wise in
excluding (on present evidence) the Ground Dove from the list. It is rather
surprising to find Swainson’s Hawk listed as a “fairly common migrant”; we had
regarded it as rare at present in the state. The misspelling of the word “species”
has been mentioned in other reviews. The paper brings together a quantity of
information for one of the representative portions of the state, and lays a splendid
foundation for the larger problem of a state-wide report. — T. C. S.

The Parasitic Habit in the Ducks, a Theoretical Consideration. By Herbert
Friedman. Proc. U. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 80, Art. 18, pp. 1-7. Washington,
I). C., 1932.

Attention is here called to the facts that often the eggs of the European
Ruddy Duck may hatch without complete incubation, and that several species of
ducks have the habit of laying their eggs in the nests of other birds; for example
the Argentine black-headed duck is “regularly and entirely parasitic in its repro-
ductive activities”. These facts lead to some interesting speculation as to the
origin of the peculiar habits. — T. C. S.

Ornithological Literature

125

Progress in the Western Duck Sickness Studies. By E. R. Kalmbach. Re-
printed from Science, Jan. 8, 1932, Vol. 75, No. 1932, pp. 57-58.

This communication is a further report on the theory that the duck sickness
is caused by the toxin of a bacillus. Previous reports (noticed in this magazine
for June, 1931, p. 143) had indicated the presence of the bacillus, Clostridium
botulinum Type C, in the tissues of birds dead from the disease and in the im-
mediate environment of the sick birds. Now, the announcement is made that
during the past year the toxin of C. botulinum Type C has been demonstrated
in the bodies of birds dead from the disease, and also in the mud and water of
their environment. These facts seem to satisfy the demands of bacteriological
proof of the bacterial nature of the disease. — T. C. S.

“Check-List of North American Birds. Prepared by a committee of the
American Ornithologists’ Union. Fourth Edition. Lancaster, Pa. (American
can Ornithologists' Union) 1931. 8 vo. xix-|-526 pp. (Price 4 dollars).
“Under the leadership of Di. Witmer Stone and with years of difficult work
a committee of ten has prepared the long awaited Fourth Edition of the familiar
‘Check-List’, which is important because it not only forms the standards of
nomenclature for the ornithologists of North America but also gives reliable in-
formation on the distribution of the birds of that continent at breeding-time and
a survey of their migrations. The basis for the nomenclature of generic and
specific names is indicated with great accuracy. In contrast with the Third
Edition a number of essential revisions have proven necessary. In the arrangement
of orders, families, and genera the classification worked out by Wetmore and
Miller (1926) has been followed. The number of recognized genera has remained
approximately as before; some genera of the Third Edition have been combined
(as Archibuteo with Ruteo, Budytes with Motacilla, Astragalinus with Spinus),
while to about the same extent new divisions have been made (as the separation
of Moris and Sula, Phaeopus and Numenius, T halasseus and Sterna, Melanitta
and Oidemia) . If one draws a comparison with the nomenclature of the Euro-
pean ornithologists, which gees back essentially to Hartert, the fact must be
admitted with regret that the gull which separates the views on nomenclature on
the two sides of the ocean is still large in spite of many attempts at approach,
and that the gull will probably not be closed very soon. This is manifested in
the various decisions as to what constitutes a Genus. The Americans are far
more inclined to split genera than we are, and the question arises if they are
always fortunate thereby. The type of the genus T urdus is T. merula L. The
American migratory thrush [ Wanderdrossel=71H/"aftt5 migralorius ] is considered
congeneric with our blackbird [Amsel] by the authors of the Check-List, in con-
trast witli which they designate our red-thrush [Rotdrossel] ‘ Arceuthornis ’ musi-
cus! They call the common curlew Numenius arquatus (although Linnaeus wrote
Scolopax Arquata, ex Gesner: Arquata ) ; the whimbrel, or jack-curlew, on the
other hand is Phaeopus phaeopus. The fairy tern, or shrimp-catcher [Zwerg-
sceschwalbe=S7erna minuta I, is placed with the picktarny | Fluszseeschwalb'e=
Sterna hirundo ] in the genus Sterna, the Brandseeschwalbe [?| on the other
hand is Thalasseus. Examples ol that kind can be shown in still greater num-
bers. The agreement of the views regarding the treatment ol species is equally
small in innumerable cases. Here is clearly demonstrated that the European

126

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

ornithologists of the present have taken the lead in the question of the limits of
species and are years ahead of their American colleagues. The latter still sepa-
rate Nettion crecca and N. carolinense, Somateria moilissima and S. v-nigra,
‘ Astur ’ gentilis and A. atricapillus, Lagopus mutus and L. rupestris, Hirundo
rustica and H. erythrogaster, ‘ IS annus 5 troglodytes and N. hiemalis, etc., as species;
yes, in several cases they have even gone hack beyond the point of view of the
Third Edition in ‘retrograde development’, (for example, with Arquatella and
Junco!). The goal of an internationally recognized nomenclature still lies in the
distant future. In order to attain it, questions like the following must be settled
for all time by general agreement: does Eremophilus exclude the later name

Eremophila, and is Reichenbach’s (1852) fixation of the genotype for Colymbus
valid, etc.? The magnificent supplement ‘The fossil birds of North America’
from the pen of Dr. A. Wetmore is a valuable addition.” — Dr. Erwin Stresemann,
in Ornithologische Monatsberichte, Vol. 40, No. 2, March, 1932. [Translated from
the German by Henry Rath].

Fall Migration of the Black Duck from Northern Michigan. By Miles D.

Pirnie. Reprinted from Mich. Acad. Sci. Arts & Letters, Vol. XV, 1931, pp.

485-490.

It is here stated that the Black Duck “breeds in almost every county in
Michigan”. The paper is based on data obtained from banded birds. Of 845
Black Ducks banded in northern Michigan, 199 returns were secured These re-
turns were distributed throughout the Mississippi Valley, with also a considerable
number along the Atlantic Coast. The paper draws certain conclusions concern-
ing the time of the movement and the dispersion. — T. C. S.

The Hawks and Owls of Ontario. By L. L. Snyder. Handbook No. 2, Royal
Ontario Museum of Zoology. Pp. 1-48. Toronto, 1932. Price, 35 cents.
Nineteen species of hawks and eleven species of owls are treated in this
pamphlet. There is a general description of each species, with a careful state-
ment of the economic status — the latter in most cases being illustrated by a cir-
cular percentage diagram. — T. C. S.

Usefulness of Birds on the Farm. By W. L. McAtee. Farmers’ Bull. No.
1682, U. S. Dept. Agric. Washington, D. C., 1932. Pp. 1-13. Price, 5 cents.
This bulletin contains much new information, and serves as a good summary
of the general economic status of these birds. — T. C. S.

Food Habits and Economic Status of the Brewer and Red-winged Blackbirds.
By Pablo S. Soriano. Reprinted from Calif. Fish and Game, Vol. 17, No. 4,
Oct., 1931. State Fish and Game Commission, 510 Russ Bldg., San Francisco.
We find in this paper a very extensive examination into the economic status
of the two species in question. Much evidence was collected, and the conclusion
was reached that both species are more beneficial than harmful, and that they
should be protected during the breeding season. But it was also recognized that
because of their gregarious habits after the breeding season they may become
locally destructive, and may then lie reduced in numbers in fairness to the
farmers. — T. C. S.

Ornithological Literature

127

A Bibliography of Tennessee Ornithology. By Jesse M. Shaver. Journ. Tenn.

Acad. Sci., VI, No. 4, Oct, 1931, pp. 179-190.

This list of titles contains 237 items, and we note that the greatest number of
titles by one author is thirty-eight, by A. F. Ganier. Those who have not at-
tempted it will perhaps scarcely realize the amount of work involved in assembling
even an approximately complete bibliography. The publication of one is always
of great value to the progress of any particular phase of science — it fixes the
progress that has been made up to that point. — T. C. S.

Birds of North Louisiana. By George H. Lowery. Bull. La. Polytechnic Inst,
XXIX, No. 4, 1931, pp. 1-60. Published by the Polytechnic Institute, Ruston,
La.

This paper reports on 252 species and subspecies of birds observed in Louisi-
ana north of latitude 31°. Most of the study hitherto given to the birds of this
state has been made in the southern part of the state. The northern part, which
seems to have been neglected, is treated in the present paper. — T. C. S.

Birds of Sioux City, Iowa. By Walter W. Bennett. Published by the Sioux

City Bird Club, 1931. Price, 10 cents.

This pocket booklet of eighteen pages lists 293 species and subspecies. The
evidence for a number of forms admitted is not convincing. Even if specimens
are not insisted upon, the documentary evidence is not fully presented. The re-
viewer knows of no evidence of the former abundance (or even occurrence) of the
Passenger Pigeon in the vicinity of Sioux City. The Glossy Ibis mentioned is an
immature specimen, and is more probably a White-faced Glossy Ibis (guarauna) .
Perhaps a dozen other species in the list are open to question of one sort or an-
other. For the most part, however, it is a useful list lor the purposes for which
it was intended — T. C. S.

The Seasons of Birds in Central Ohio as Shown by Six Years’ Migration

Records. Compiled by Charles F. Walker. Published in Ohio State Mns.

Bull, Vol. I (date not shown).

In this paper Mr. Walker has attempted to compile the dates of arrival and
departure of the birds and from an area of central Ohio comprising all or parts
of several counties, and which may be called the Columbus region. The table is
based on observations obtained during the years of 1922-1927. A list of winter
birds for the same region is appended. — T. C. S.

Ohio Game and Song Birds in Winter. By Lawrence E. Hicks. Bulletin of
of the Bureau of Scientific Research, Division of Conservation, Vol. I, No. 2,
Jan, 1932, pp. 1-68. Columbus, Ohio.

Mr. Hicks has prepared a very useful manual on the winter care of wild bird
life. The subject is treated under six heads, viz, 1) emergency feeding in winter,
2) report on experimental field work, 3) conservation and checks on natural
increase, 4) planting of food crops for birds, 5) list of all Ohio winter birds —
to the number of 159, and 6) a bibliography of literature. Ten halftone repro-
ductions of photographs make interesting illustrations.— T. C. S.

128

The Wilson Bulletin — June, 1932

The California Ground Squirrel Control Program. By Eugene S. Kellogg

Calif. Dept. Agric. Special Publ., No. 109. Pp. 1-21. Sacramento, 1931.

Apparently this paper is prepared as a defense against attacks on the wide-
spread use of poison for rodent control purposes in California and other parts of
the west. The paper discusses the need of control of rodents, the occurrence in
rodents of disease to which man is susceptible, and the secondary effects of
poisoned hait on other forms of wild life. The paper concludes with a direct
reply and criticism of the much-quoted article by Dr. Linsdale in the Condor
last year. Innuendo is used repeatedly to asperse the validity of Linsdale’s “facts”,
but it seems to us that the author has been careful to avoid an unequivocal
denial of the facts. After all, to the general observer and conservationist it
makes very little difference whether the deaths were caused by one kind of poison
or another. — T. C. S.

To the Migrant Mrs. Sanford Duncan contributes two notes on “snakes vs.
birds”; in the last December number one note records that a small snake was
found in a Mockingbird's nest containing eggs; in the last March (1932) number
she also reports the capture of a full grown flicker by a bullsnake. Messrs.
Dillon and Ganier, in the December number, record the nesting in Tennessee of
the Prairie Horned Lark. The Migrant is an 8-page quarterly, the subscription
is fifty cents per year, and the Editor is Mr. George B. Woodring, 1414 Stratton
Ave., Nashville, Tenn.

In the March, 1932, number of the Gall Mr. C A. Harwell gives a few notes
on the Water Ouzel. He records that during one period of observation “the birds
submerged twelve times in twenty seconds, rested ten seconds; submerged eight
times in fifteen seconds, rested twelve seconds; submerged twelve times in twenty
seconds”. The Gull is a 4-page monthly, S 1 .00 per year, Mrs. A. B. Stephens,
Editor, 1695 Filbert St., San Francisco.

The Audubon Annual Bulletin (Illinois) for 1932 contains sixty-four pages
of text and pictures. Two very interesting photographs attract attention, one of
Benjamin F. Gault with the late Robert Ridgway, and another, a very unusual
flashlight picture of a deer in the wild. Many short articles make up an excellent
number.

During the past few months we have received the following mimeographed
publications: the Yellowstone National Park Nature Notes, issued monthly in

the office of the Superintendent, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. The
Raven, monthly organ of the Virginia Society of Ornithology, edited by Dr. J. J.
Murray, Lynchburg, Va. The Flicker, quarterly organ of the Minnesota Bird
Club, edited by Gustav Swanson, 3305 47th Ave., S., Minneapolis, Minn. The
Chickadee, monthly organ of the Forbush Bird Club, Worcester, Mass. This is a
new periodical, but from copies we have seen we have not learned the subscription
price nor business address; however Dr. W. Elmer Ekblaw, Clark University,
Worcester, Mass., is president of the club and can give information. Inland
Bird Banding Notes, quarterly organ of the Inland Bird Banding Association,
Edward R. Ford, Secretary, 7077 Ridge Ave., Chicago, 111. News from the Bird
Banders, quarterly organ of the Western Bird-Banding Association, Museum of
Vertebrate Zoology, Berkeley, Calif. Bird Banding Notes, issued by the Bureau
of Biological Survey, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.

From Our President

During this time of financial stress, it is very important that bird study and
nature work be not neglected. For those who can see and hear, nature offers
solace, quiet, and sanity. Never was it more essential for people to keep their
feet on the ground, and to have a means of getting away for a time from the
toil and strife of everyday life. Never has it been more desirable to keep up the
work of organizations like the Wilson Ornithological Club, and to exert every
effort to encourage people to hold their faith in the natural world, and in the
world of man as well.

With these things in mind your President has been writing personal
letters to the membership urging that they contribute to the resources of
the Club by raising the membership rank, or in other ways. The need is a
real one, but it is temporary; and we will be glad to see our organization
pass through the crisis in a creditable manner. Our chief duty concerns the
publication of the magazine. Can you assist?

Jesse M. Shaver, President.

From Our Secretary

Today many scientific and educational projects are being curtailed or abol-
ished because of financial difficulties. Conservation, bird study, and wild life
interests in general are receiving setbacks. Because of this they need our atten-
tion more now than ever before. We have but one choice — to go on.

Some of our members have been forced to discontinue. Those of us
who remain must go on with increased enthusiasm. We hope that each
member may do something to increase our membership. The Secretary will
be glad to receive the names of any prospective members, to whom he will
then extend the invitation to membership. Our organization has weathered
the storm of existence for forty-four years, and there is no question of
survival; but we dislike to give up ground that we have laboriously gained.

If you can help, perhaps this is the time.

Lawrence E. Hicks, Secretary.

Annual Meetings of the Wilson Ornithological Club

Retiring

1914 — Chicago. February 5. President

Chicago Academy of Sciences.

1914 — Chicago. December 29-30.

New Morrison Hotel T. C. Stephens

1915 — Columbus. December 28-29.

With the A. A. A. S T. C. Stephens

1916 — Chicago December 27-28.

New Morrison Hotel T. C. Stephens

1917 — Pittsburgh. January 1-2, 1918.

With the A. A. A. S W. F. Henninger

1918 — No meeting on account of the

exigencies of war M. H. Swenk

1919 — St. Louis. December 29-30.

With the A. A. A. S M. H. Swenk

1920 — Chicago. December 27-28.

With the A. A. A. S R. M. Strong

1921 — Chicago. December 26-27.

The Field Museum R. M. Strong

1922 — Chicago. October 26 T. L. Hankinson

1923 — Cincinnati. Dec. 81, 1923-Jan. 1, 1924.

With the A. A. A. S T. L. Hankinson

1924 — Nashville. November 28-29-30.

Peabody College A. F. Ganier

1925 — Kansas City. December 28-29.

With the A. A. A. S A. F. Ganier

1926 — Chicago. November 26-27.

Chicago Academy of Sciences A. F. Ganier

1927 — Nashville. Dec. 30, 1927-Jan. 1, 1928.

With the A. A. A. S Lynds Jones

1928 — Ann Arbor. Nov. 31-Dec. 1, 1928.

Museum of Zoology Lynds Jones

1929 — Des Moines. December 27-28.

With the A. A. A. S Lynds Jones

1930 — Cleveland. December 29-30.

With the A. A. A. S J. W. Stack

1931 — New Orleans. December 28-29.

With the A. A. A. S , J. W. Stack

Qiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiihiiiiiiiihii

m»iiinin»iimiMimmnmimiM,,minlllll|„ltlltllltlllt|||||<p^j

OCT 1 1 1932

Vol. XLIV SEPTEMBER, 1932 No. 3

THE

WILSON BULLETIN

A Magazine of Field Ornithology

Published by the

WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB

at

SIOUX CITY. IOWA

Entered as Second-class Mail Matter, July 13, 1916, at the Postoffice at
Sioux City, Iowa, under Act of March 3, 1879.

H

CONTENTS

A Study of Merriam’s Temperature Laws

By S. Charles Kendeigh 129-143

Life Zones, Modern Ecology, and the Failure of Tem-
perature Summing By Victor E. Shelford 144-157

Snow and Goss, the Pioneers in Kansas Ornithology

By Mrs. H. J. Taylor 158-169

Notes from Central Iowa By Philip A. DuMont 170-177

Editorial 178-179

General Notes 180-189

Membership Roll

190-192

THE WILSON BULLETIN

Published quarterly, in March, June, September, and December, as the official
organ of the Wilson Ornithological Club, at Sioux City, Iowa.

The current issue of the Wilson Bulletin is printed by the Verstegen Printing
Company, Sioux City, Iowa.

The Wilson Bulletin is sent to all members not in arrears for dues. The
subscription price is $1.50 a year, invariably in advance, in the United States.
Outside of the United States the subscription rate is $1.75. New subscriptions,
change of address, and applications for membership should be addressed to the
Secretary.

All articles and communications for publication, books and publications for
notice, and exchanges, should be addressed to the Editor.

Claims for lost and undelivered copies of the magazine may be addressed to
the Editor.

THE WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB

Founded December 3, 1888. Named after Alexander Wilson, the first American
ornithologist, and called the “Father of American Ornithology.”

The officers for the current year are:

President — Prof. J. M. Shaver, George Peabody College for Teachers, Nash-
ville, Tenn.

First Vice-President — Prof. E. L. Moseley, State Teachers College, Bowling
Green, Ohio.

Second Vice-President — Dr. Josselyn Van Tyne, Museum of Zoology, Ann
Arbor, Mich.

Treasurer — Mr. W. M. Rosene, City State Bank, Ogden, Iowa.

Secretary — Mr. Lawrence E. Hicks, Botany Dept., 0. S. U., Columbus, Ohio.
Editor — T. C. Stephens, Morningside College, Sioux City, Iowa.

The membership dues are— Sustaining membership, $5.00; active membership,
$2.50; associate membership, $1.50 per year.

The following societies are affiliated organizations:

The Nebraska Ornithologists’ Union.

The Iowa Ornithologists’ Union.

The Kentucky Ornithological Society.

The Tennessee Ornithological Society.

THE WILSON BULLETIN

A QUARTERLY MAGAZINE OF ORNITHOLOGY
Published by the Wilson Ornithological Club

Vol. XLIV SEPTEMBER, 1932 No. 3

Yol. XXXIX (New Series) Whole Number 160

A STUDY OF MERRIAM’S TEMPERATURE LAWS*

BY S. CHARLES KENDEIGH

In 1894, Dr. C. Hart Merriam, of the United States Bureau of
Biological Survey, formulated laws of temperature control for the
northward and southward distribution of terrestrial animals and plants.
At the time that these laws were formulated, they were, undoubtedly,
the best statement of the known effect of temperature on limiting dis-
tribution. Much work of an ecological nature has since been done,
however, and a reexamination of these laws is needed.

Statement of Temperature Laws
General Considerations. Dr. Merriam was concerned only with the
factors of climate which are effective in limiting the distribution of
plants and animals during the season of growth and reproduction,
which is the open or summer season. He assumed that this season is
the only part of the yearly cycle in which temperature exerts a limiting
effect upon the distribution of plants and animals, as at other seasons
sensitive organisms either become dormant, go into hibernation, or
migrate.

Largely on the basis of previous work in the field, Merriam as-
sumed that temperature is by far the most important factor limiting
the northward and southward distribution of organisms. He then
endeavored to determine which phase of temperature was the critical
one by ascertaining what isotherms, when plotted on a large scale
map of North America, most nearly agreed with the boundaries of his
biotic units, the “life zones", then also in the formative period. The
life zones represented unit areas of distribution, each characterized by
possessing peculiar genera of animals and plants. If certain isotherms
agreed with the boundaries of the life zones, then those isotherms, he
argued, must represent the true factor of temperature which con-
trolled the distributional limits of the animals and plants contained
therein.

*Contribution from the Baldwin Bird Research Laboratory (No. 23) and
Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.

130

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

First Temperature Law. After trying and discarding the use of
mean temperature for the reproductive period, use was made of the
century-old idea of summation of temperatures. This idea is based
upon the belief “that the same stage of vegetation is attained in any
year when the sum of mean daily temperatures reaches the same
value”. A method of summing mean daily temperatures was worked
out, and temperature summations were determined for a large number
of stations scattered across the continent. When lines (isotherms)
were drawn connecting localities with equal sums of temperature, these
lines coincided satisfactorily with the northern boundaries of the life
zones. He therefore formulated his first temperature law, “ Animals
and plants are restricted in northward distribution by the total quan-
tity of heat during the season of growth and reproduction' .

Second Temperature Law. Although these isotherms, so drawn,
appeared to agree fairly well with the northern limits of distribution
of plants and animals in the life zones, they did not coincide so closely
with the southern limits of more northerly forms, notably near the
Pacific coast. Wishing to determine the effective phase of tempera-
ture which limits the southward distribution of animals and plants,
Merriam next plotted the mean daily temperature of an arbitrary
period of six weeks during the hottest part of the summer. Isotherms
formed from these data agreed with the southern boundaries of the
life zones. This led to the formulation of the second temperature law,
“Animals and plants are restricted in southward distribution by the
mean temperature of a brief period covering the hottest part of the
year’ .

Table of Zone Temperatures. Included in his paper is a table
giving the critical temperatures which are supposed to limit the north-
ward and southward distribution of organisms. For instance, the
northern limit of the Transition Life Zone is determined by a sum
total of mean daily temperatures amounting to approximately
10,000° F., the Upper Austral Zone by 11,500° F., the Lower Austral
Zone by 18,000° F., and the Tropical Zone by 26,000° F. The south-
ern limit of the Arctic Zone is determined, he supposed, by a nor-
mal mean temperature of 50° F. during the six hottest consecutive
weeks, the Hudsonian Zone by 57.2° F„ the Canadian Zone by 64.4° F.,
the Transition Zone by 71.6° F., and the Upper Austral Zone by
78.8° F.

Importance of Humidity. Three of the life zones were later di-
vided at about the 100th meridian into eastern and western portions.
Th is was based largely upon a very noticeable difference in humidity.

A Study of Merriam’s Temperature Laws

131

The east and west divisions are, however, of subordinate rank com-
pared with the zonation north and south.

Acceptance of Laws. These temperature laws were accepted by
some biologists, particularly by ornithologists and mammalogists, but
not so generally by other zoologists nor by botanists.

The First Temperature Law

It is necessary to consider each temperature law separately, since
they are quite different, and criticisms applied to one do not neces-
sarily apply to the other. The first temperature law assumes that
summed daily temperatures during the reproductive season control
northward distribution.

Season of Temperature Effectiveness. The reproductive and grow-
ing season is not, as Merriam supposed, the only time when tempera-
ture may be effective in controlling the distribution of animals and
plants. Even though some of those forms which do not migrate may
become dormant in winter, they are still not insensitive to extreme
climatic conditions.

Shreve (1914) studied the relation of winter temperatures to the
vertical distribution of vegetation in Arizona and found that “the great-
est number of consecutive hours of freezing temperature is the factor
most closely corresponding in its distribution, with the limitation of
the species concerned . Experimental work with succulent species
showed that those which have the lowest vertical limit of distribution
were unable to resist freezing over 19 to 22 hours in duration. Ac-
cording to Salmon (1917), the isotherm of 10° F. for the daily mini-
mum temperature of January and February coincides, in general, with
the boundary of winter wheat culture in the United States. Northern
evergreen trees resist winter-killing by increasing the osmotic pressure
and water-retaining capacities of their leaves (Gail, 1926). Some
plants are capable of initiating hardening processes to enable them
to withstand low temperatures, while others are not (Rosa, 1921).

Hardening, to resist low winter temperatures, occurs also in some
species of insects (Payne, 1926). This enables certain species to
survive in regions where others, lacking this capacity, can not do so.
Sanderson (1908) made a particular study of the influence of win-
ter temperature in controlling the northward distribution of insects.
He found that several species are absent from regions where the sum-
mation of temperatures during the summer is amply sufficient to allow
their reproduction, but where minimum winter temperatures do not
permit their survival, even though they are in hibernation.

132

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

With birds that migrate south for passing the winter, temperature
is undoubtedly of significance in limiting their breeding range only
during the open season. However, the wintering range of these birds
may often be influenced as much by temperature as is the breeding
range and in a similar manner (as in the ease of Troglodytes aedon
aedon) , so that temperature is effective, as far as the birds are con-
cerned, at all seasons of the year. Likewise, with birds and mammals
which have never acquired the habit of migration but are permanent
residents in a region, low temperatures of winter are of utmost im-
portance and undoubtedly exert at that time as much or more in-
fluence in determining the distributional limits of the species than
they do in the summer. These points are strongly substantiated in a
paper which we have ready for publication but unable to include here
(Kendeigh, Ms.).

In temperate regions, seasonal changes in the aspects of biotic
communities is one of the most striking of ecological phenomena.
Nearly all animals and plants undergo differences in behavior and
physiology as the winter season comes on. This may be merely an
increase in the resistance to low temperatures which occurs in ever-
green trees, cold-blooded organisms, and in those birds and mammals
which remain active in the region throughout the year. Or it may
consist in the shedding of the sensitive leaves of deciduous trees, the
production of seeds and dying down of annual plants, the going into
hibernation of mammals and cold-blooded animals, or the migrating
of birds. Species vary in their responses and resistances. Those
that can not make the necessary adjustments can not exist, and so are
not found in the regions where unfavorable conditions occur at some
time during the year. Temperature must certaiidy be considered as
effective at any time of the year, not just during the reproductive
period. A temperature law that does not take this into consideration
obviously can not be a complete nor even a true statement of the con-
trolling role of temperature in distribution.

Significance of Isotherms. Merriam found a rather close agree-
ment between the isotherms of accumulated daily temperatures with
the northern boundaries of his life zones. This, he maintained, was a
proof that they were the effective temperatures involved in limiting
northward distribution. That this is not necessarily so is shown by
the work of others.

Livingston and Shreve (1921), also using the cartographic method
in much the same way that Merriam did, attempted to analyze the
temperature factor in all its phases as it affects the distribution of

A Study of Merriam’s Temperature Laws

133

plants. They considered Merriam’s temperature laws and life zones
in detail. The aspects of the temperature factor which they consid-
ered were: duration of average frostless season; duration of average
frost season; length of period of high daily mean temperatures; length
of period of low daily mean temperatures; summation of daily mean
temperatures above 0° F., 32° F., 39° F., and 50°F.; summation of
exponential indices of temperature efficiency; summation of physio-
logical indices of temperature efficiency; absolute temperature maxi-
ma; absolute temperature minima; average daily temperature during
fourteen coldest days of year; Merriam’s average temperature during
hottest six weeks of year; and mean annual temperature. With all
of these different aspects of the temperature factor, they found an east
and west zonation of temperature across the continent. By selecting
the proper isotherms, agreement in nearly all instances with the
boundaries of the life zones can be had in a rough way. The selection
of any one of these phases of the temperature factor, to the exclusion
of the rest, as the effective one in controlling distribution, is not war-
ranted without a basis in the physiological and behavior responses of
the organisms concerned. This is the next point that needs to be
considered here.

Summing Temperatures. Probably Merriam was right in assum-
ing that the completion of any growth stage or mature organism re-
quires a certain more or less definite amount of energy transforma-
tion. Krogh (1914) found this to be true for the pupal development
of a beetle, Tenebrio , as measured by the total carbon dioxide output,
and this output is not directly proportional to the temperature. In re-
gions where the season is too short to allow the accumulation of the
necessary amount of energy for the development of an organism, that
organism could not, of course, be a regular member of the biota there.
One may easily imagine that this may be one out of several factors
effective in limiting the distribution of cold-blooded (poikilothermic)
organisms (but not warm-blooded or homoiothermic ones as will be
shown later). The difficulty comes in developing methods for com-
puting this energy.

Merriam attempted to compute this energy requirement by the
direct summing of daily mean temperatures above a certain threshold.
Merriam quotes DeCandolle’s work in 1835 as showing that wheat
does not germinate at temperatures below 43° F. (6° C.), and so this
temperature is the threshold for development in this species. Assum-
ing that this temperature threshold is the same for all plants and ani-
mals and in all localities, Merriam’s idea was to substract 43° F.

134

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

(6° C.) from the mean temperature for each day during the entire
reproductive season. These temperature remainders would all be added
together, and the resultant figure was to represent the total heat (in
degree-days) available for development. By summing the effective
temperatures in this way at a large number of stations he could arrive
at totals characteristic of each life zone. Since different species of
plants and animals apparently require different amounts of heat
(energy) for their development, those that require the most would, he
argued, be confined to the more southern life zones, while those that
could get along with less would flourish in the more northern life
zones. This is the physiological assumption for his first temperature
law, the errors in which are pointed out in detail by Shelford in the
succeeding paper.

However, there are criticisms that may be brought against this
method of computing the total heat or total energy required for de-
velopment in addition to those discussed by Shelford. The first of
these is in regard to the selection of 43° F. (6° C.) as a threshold for
development. The temperature threshold of development and activity
is not the same for all organisms. Sanderson and Peairs (1913) esti-
mated that the threshold value for the development of insect eggs and
pupae varied from 37° F. to 52° F. in the case of different species.
DeCandolle, himself, is quoted to have found seeds of some plants
germinating at 32 F. while others, as corn, did not do so below
48° F. In the case of the development of eggs of the domestic fowl,
the threshold temperature is 68° F. (Edwards, 1902). Likewise the
initiation and termination of dormancy (hibernation and aestivation)
in mammals has been found to occur at different temperatures and
under different conditions (Johnson, 1931).

The temperature threshold may not be a constant value even
within the same species. Shelford (1927) found that in the develop-
ment of the codling moth the true temperature threshold is not a fixed
point but varies, within certain limits, with the humidity and other
weather factors, and also with the generation and the individual. For
the larva, it was found to vary from 43° to 48° F.; for the pupa and
egg, from 44° to 49 F.; and for the hibernated larva, from 43° to

50° F. We have reason to believe, also, that the temperature threshold
is lower for plants and animals at high latitudes and altitudes than
it is for those living in warmer regions. The error of selecting at
random the threshold value for one species to hold for all forms in
all localities is therefore manifest.

A Study of Merriam’s Temperature Laws

135

The table of summed daily temperatures (discussed above) which
Merriam presents in his paper and which was used as the basis for
drawing his isotherms is incorrect. This was due to a misunderstand-
ing with the U. S. Weather Bureau, which computed the temperatures.
The error in these computations was not discovered until later (Mer-
riam, 1899), and no corrected table bas since been published. The
temperatures were summed above a threshold of 32° F. (0° C.) in-
stead of 43° F. (6° C. ) , although only for days when the mean tem-
perature arose above 43° F. (6° C.). Consequently the table of
summed temperatures which Merriam gives is much too high, as Shel-
ford points out graphically in the succeeding report. The agreement
between Merriam's isotherms and the boundaries of the life zones is
not a proof, therefore, of the correctness of his arguments — rather
the contrary.

Various methods have been devised for summing temperatures
above a definite threshold. The earliest method, and that which Mer-
riam used, was formulated by Reaumur (1735) who summed tempera-
tures above freezing for the years 1734 and 1735 and correlated these
temperatures with the difference in the time of appearance of plants
and animals during these two years.

From the practical standpoint, this method is criticized because
the sums which it yields are too variable. Seeley (1917) summed
temperatures above 43° F. from January 1 to the date of ripening of
the Crawford peach at Wauseon, Ohio, for the years 1883 to 1912. He
obtained sums during certain years as widely different as 3030° and
4347° F. He therefore declares that this method has no great value.
He further emphasizes the importance of considering the temperature
of the plant itself rather than of the air when studying the influence
of temperature on growth. Likewise, Hunter and Hooker (1907) de-
termined the total “effective temperatures" for the hatching of eggs
of the cattle tick, by direct summing of temperatures above 43° F.,
and found that eggs laid from September 15 to October 15 require
a total of 837.6° to 1510.8° F. to hatch, while those laid in April and
May require 981.6° to 1139.1° F.

Livingston and Shreve (1921) and Shelford (1927, 1929) have
severely criticized from the physiological viewpoint the method of
direct summing of air temperatures for ascertaining the accumulation
of energy for development. This is based on the fact that the rate of
development varies widely at different temperatures. The inaccuracy,
of the method of direct temperature summation is fully dealt with in
the following paper and so will not be discussed further here. The

136

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

Fig. 27. Natural fluctuations in temperature of a House Wren egg under
normal conditions in the nest. Curve 1 represents the body temperature of the
adult bird; curve 2 is the temperature in the nest above tbe eggs, both when the
bird is incubating and when she is away; curve 3 shows the temperature of the
egg; and curve 4 shows the temperature in the nest beneath the eggs.

Of oc

Fig. 28. Natural fluctuations in temperature of a House Wren nestling under
normal conditions in the nest. Curve 1 shows the body temperature of the adult
bird; curve 2 shows the temperature in the nest above the nestling, both when the
adult bird is brooding and when she is away; curve 3 shows the temperature of
the nestling; and curve 4 is the temperature ol the nest beneath the nestling.

A Study of Merriam’s Temperature Laws

137

complexity of the problem is evident, and much more work needs
to be done before the actual limiting effect of “total heat ’ during the
season of reproduction may he adequately conceived.

Temperature Tolerance by Birds. A certain rather definite total
of energy is probably as necessary for complete embryonic develop-
ment of birds as it appears to be for the development of other ani-
mals (Krogh, 1914; Shelford, 1927). Bohr and Hasselbalch (1900)
measured the rate of carbon dioxide output at all stages of the de-
velopment of the domestic fowl, and similar studies have been per-
formed by others (see Needham, 1931). The subject is capable, there-
fore, of experimental proof and measurement. Bird's eggs develop
to hatching within a narrow temperature range. They are dependent,
therefore, upon suitable conditions for maintaining them within this
range.

Merriam’s temperature law assumes that a sum of environmental
temperatures is required before this total energy required by the bird’s
egg for development can be obtained. Actually, however, the tempera-
ture of the bird’s egg in the nest is maintained several degrees above
that of the air and is relatively unaffected by outside environmental
temperatures. This is well shown in figure 27, which is taken from
a forthcoming paper (Baldwin and Kendeigh, 1932) where the sub-
ject is discussed in detail. Likewise, the temperature of nestling birds
is not directly dependent upon that of the outside environment
(Fig. 28). The reason for this is that the adult birds have evolved a
complicated nest and reproductive behavior that keeps nest conditions,
particularly those involving temperature, at what is probably the opti-
mum for the species. As long as the adult birds are able to survive
and carry on normal activities in a region, they can maintain the
requisite conditions required for the proper development of the young
regardless of any accumulation of environmental temperatures with-
out. This constitutes one important difference in the developmental
history of warm-blooded and cold-blooded organisms, since the latter
alone are directly dependent upon environmental temperatures for fur-
nishing the energy needed in development. Thus summed environ-
mental temperatures, even if such summed temperatures could be cor-
rectly determined in a significant manner, cannot possibly limit the
distribution of birds through affecting development. Temperature ap-
pears to limit the northern distribution only when it affects the adult,
and here other aspects of temperature are more important.

Some ornithologists have interpreted Merriam’s laws as meaning
that a certain sum of environmental temperatures during the season is

138

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

required before the adult bird is able to complete its entire nesting
cycle. This idea is without adequate physiological basis for warm- ,
blooded animals. As long as temperatures are above the limit of
tolerance for the existence and carrying on of normal activities by the
adult birds, the exact degree of heat, while it has some importance, is
not of primary significance. Birds have been found in our studies of
body temperature regulation to have efficient physiological mecha-
nisms that compensate for variations in environmental temperatures
and maintain constant body temperatures (Baldwin and Kendeigh,
1932).

The length of the season when temperatures are above the thresh-
old for development and activity of cold-blooded animals and of plants
or above the limit of tolerance for adult birds and mammals is quite
a different matter from the summation of daily temperatures during
this period. The season may be too short for allowing the completion
of the entire reproductive cycle of activities. This may conceivably
determine whether the bird will raise each season two broods, one
brood, or none at all. It is only when the temperatures go beyond
the limits of tolerance that birds are incapable of reproducing or of
existing in the region and are limited in their distribution.

Birds possess a limit of tolerance to low air temperature when
this factor acts in conjunction with long periods of time during which
the obtaining of food is difficult. We have made an intensive study
of temperature resistance of birds (Kendeigh, Ms.). These studies
indicate that the average night temperature combined with the number
of hours of darkness, when the procuring of food is impossible for
most birds, are crucial and critical factors involved in controlling
the northward distribution, the migration, and the abundance of birds.
This is particularly true of the smaller passeriform species. Larger
and heavier birds may have a greater resistance to low temperature
than do the smaller birds, and this can be measured. Some factors
other than temperature are correspondingly more important with the
larger birds than the smaller ones, although other factors must be
considered also in the case of all species.

Other Factors. Other factors aside from temperature may be of
more or less critical importance in limiting the distribution of plants
and animals. Undoubtedly, different factors have diverse degrees of
importance with different species. It is advisable to study each of
these other factors separately for each species of birds before broad
generalizations be made concerning whole faunas. Our own experi-
ments with birds emphasize the importance of such other factors as

A Study of Merriam’s Temperature Laws

139

relative length of day and night, intensity of solar radiation, vegeta-
tion, food, and biotic competition (Kendeigh, Ms.). Livingston and
Shreve (1921) have discussed the importance of many different fac-
tors in relation to the distribution of plants; Grinnell (1914, 1917,
1928) and Howell (1922, 1924) have done the same for mammals
and also birds.

Summary. The criticisms against Merriam’s first temperature law
as it applies to both animals and plants may be summarized as follows:

(1) Temperatures at other times of the year than the season of
growth and reproduction may be effective in limiting the northward
distribution of organisms.

(2) The mere cartographic agreement between particular lines of
equal temperature (isotherms) and boundaries of life zones or other
biotic areas does not in itself without adequate physiological basis
constitute proof that such particular factors are the critical ones limit-
ing distribution.

(3) The physiological basis of summing temperatures, which Mer-
riam used, is without significance because (a) the temperature thresh-
old of development varies widely in different species, and so, no one
value which is not an average for each locality can be used; (b) tem-
peratures, as they affect in a significant manner the development of
plants and animals, cannot be summed directly because of marked
differences in the rate of development at different temperatures; and
(c) no distinction between cold-blooded and warm-blooded organisms
is made in the possible effect of environmental temperatures upon
development.

(4) The actual statistical climatic data used by Merriam to sup-
port his arguments and to prove the relation between temperature and
the distributional boundaries of the life zones were incorrectly de-
termined.

(5) Other phases of the temperature factor or other factors aside
from temperature are of importance in limiting the northward distri-
bution of animals and plants.

The Second Temperature Law

The arguments concerning Merriam’s second temperature law will
be only briefly summarized here. This law states that the southward
distribution of plants and animals are limited by the mean tempera-
ture during the hottest part of the summer.

Isotherms. The same criticism which holds against the method
of Merriam in demonstrating the first temperature law applies also in
the case of the second temperature law. The mere agreement between

140

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

particular isotherms and limits of distribution does not, without ade-
quate experimental and physiological basis, constitute proof that such
factors are the most critical or controlling ones.

Maximum Temperatures. In our study of the physiology of bird
temperatures (Baldwin and Kendeigh, 1932), we found that varia-
tions in the mean temperature of the air from day to day have very
little effect upon body temperatures of birds, even during the hottest
period of the summer. However, during periods lasting from one to
a few hours, the temperature of the bird may rise and normal nesting
behavior be greatly disturbed due to exposure to the sun or to maxi-
mum daily air temperatures. Experiments performed with English
Sparrows (Passer domesticus domesticus) and Eastern House Wrens
(' Troglodytes aedon aedon ) indicate that high air temperatures become
significant only when they get as high as 93° F. (Kendeigh, Ms.). At
air temperatures above this degree the resistance time of birds de-
creases, body temperature may rise, the general metaholism is abnor-
mally disturbed, and normal reproductive behavior interferred with.
These two species of birds frequently survive air temperatures above
93° F., but only when these temperatures are maintained for rela-
tively short periods each day and only by modifying their normal
behavior. Birds have, therefore, upper limits of temperature toler-
ance as well as lower limits, and these are effective in controlling
distribution (Kendeigh, Ms.).

However, these high air temperatures usually do not persist for
more than a few hours each day. They are the maximum daily tempera-
tures. The mean daily temperature, even during the hottest part of
the summer, is considerably lower, because the nights are cooler. On
the basis of these experimental results and careful analysis of the
temperature factor in the field, the conclusion appears warranted that
the maximum daily temperatures, rather than the mean, are more im-
portant in controlling the southward distribution of birds. We may
suppose that the same is true with other kinds of organisms.

Other Seasons. Merriam limited the influence of high tempera-
ture to the hottest part of the year (six weeks). While high tempera-
ture is undoubtedly of considerable significance at this time, especially
in the control of the breeding range, its possible effect at other seasons
must not be excluded. High temperatures may have an influence in
determining the southward distribution of northern birds in the win-
ter, although there is little conclusive evidence on this point. Likewise,
during both the spring and fall migrations, the distribution of a species
at any one time may be influenced by high temperatures.

A Study of Merriam’s Temperature Laws

141

Other Factors. Mention needs to be made again that other factors
aside from temperature (such as those enumerated above) may often
exert an important role in controlling the distribution of birds and
other organisms, even in a southerly direction (Grinnell, 1914, 1917,
1928; Howell, 1922, 1924; Kendeigh, Ms.; Livingston and Shreve,
1921).

Summary. The arguments against Merriam’s second temperature
law maintain that:

(1) The mere agreement between isotherms and the distribu-
tional boundaries of life zones is not proof without adequate physio-
logical basis that such factors are the controlling ones in distribution.

(2) Daily maximum temperatures are more important than daily
mean temperatures in controlling the southerly distribution of birds
and probably other organisms.

(3) High temperature may influence the distribution of organisms
at other seasons of the year than just the six hottest weeks during the
summer.

(4) Factors other than temperature are also important.

Temperature Laws and Life Zones

If Merriam’s temperature laws can not be accepted and used, the
question may be raised as to what effect this will have upon the re-
liability of the “life-zone” concept and the maps of life zones that
have been made by ornithologists and mammalogists.

It is difficult to estimate to what extent these temperature laws
have influenced the mapping of life zones. It is certainly true that
Merriam published two life zone maps of North America (Merriam,
1890, 1892) before he definitely published the temperature laws in
1894. The earlier maps seem to have been based largely upon the
known distribution at that time of genera of plants and animals, al-
though the importance of temperature was even then appreciated.
Certain modifications in the maps published in 1894 and later years
suggest that after the isotherm map was made, secondary changes in
the boundaries of the life zones may have been thought advisable.
Only in so far as the life zones are based upon these temperature
formulae of Merriam, is their inadequacy questioned at this time. If
the life zone concept is to continue to exist, it must be entirely upon
the basis of the actual distribution of animals and plants. Recent
maps of life zones appear, as far as we can judge, to be based largely
upon actual distribution of organisms, although the organisms selected
to characterize the different life zones are frequently of such minor

142

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

importance and abundance as to be without significance for correla-
tions with climatic conditions.

Conclusions

1. Merriam's two laws of temperature control for the north-
ward and southward distribution of animals and plants cannot he
accepted.

2. The life zone concept, in order to survive, must be based
upon the actual distribution of important and significant animals and
plants in nature and not upon climatic factors of uncertain precon-
ceived importance.

Literature Cited

Baldwin, S. Prentiss and Kendeigh, S. Charles.

1932. Physiology of the temperature of birds. (In press). Publication Cleveland
Museum Natural History.

Bohr, C., and Hasselbalch, K. A.

1900. Ueber die Kohlensaureproduction des Hiihnerembryos. Skandinavisches
Archiv fur Physiologie, Bd. 10, S. 149-173.

Edwards, Charles Lincoln.

1902. The physiological zero and the index of development for the egg of the
domestic fowl, G alius domesticus. American Journal of Physiology,
Vol. VI, No. VI, PP. 351-397.

Gail, F. W.

1926. Osmotic pressure of cell sap and its possible relation to winter killing
and leaf fall. Botanical Gazette, Vol. 81, pp. 434-445.

Grinnell, Joseph.

1914. Barriers to distribution as regards birds and mammals. American Nat-
uralist, Vol. XLVIII, pp- 248-254.

1917. Field tests of theories concerning distributional control. American Nat-
uralist, Vol, LI, pp. 115-128.

1928. Presence and absence of animals. University of California Chronicle,
October, pp. 429-450.

Howell, A. Brazier.

1922. Agencies which govern the distribution of life. American Naturalist,
Vol. LVI, pp. 428-438.

1924. Theories of distribution — a critique. Ecology, Vol. V, No. 1, pp. 51-53.
Hunter, W. D. and Hooker, W. A.

1907. The North American fever tick. U. S. Bureau of Entomology, Bulletin 72.
Johnson, George E.

1931. Hibernation in mammals. The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. VI,
No. 4, pp. 439-461.

Kendeigh, S. Charles.

The role ol the environment in the life of birds. Manuscript.

Krogh, August.

1914. On the rate of development and C02 production of chrysalides of Tenc-
brio molitor at different temperatures. Zeitschrift fur allgemeine Physi-
ologie, Bd. 16, S. 178-190.

A Study of Merriam’s Temperature Laws

143

Livingston, Burton E. and Shreve, Forrest.

1921. The distribution of vegetation in the United States as related to climatic
conditions. Publication Carnegie Institution, Washington, No. 284, pp.
1-585.

Merriam, C. Hart.

1890. Results of a biological survey of the San Francisco Mountain region and
desert of the Little Colorado, Arizona. North American Fauna No. 3,
U. S. Department of Agriculture.

1892. The geographic distribution of life in North America with special ref-
erence to the Mammalia. Proceedings Biological Society of Washington,
Vol. 7, pp. 1-64.

1894. Laws of temperature control of the geographic distribution of terrestrial
animals and plants. National Geographic Magazine, Vol. VI, PP- 229-238.

1899. Zone temperatures. Science, N. S. Vol. IX, No. 212, p. 116.

Needham, Joseph.

1931. Chemical embryology. Cambridge.

Payne, Nellie M.

1926. The effect of environmental temperatures upon insect freezing points.
Ecology, Vol. VII, pp. 99-106.

Reaumur, R. A. F. de

1735. Observations du thermometre. Acad. Roy. des sci. des Pays-Bas Mem.,
pp. 737-754.

Rosa, J. T.

1921. Investigations on the hardening process in vegetable plants. Research
Bulletin No. 48, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Mis-
sissippi.

Salmon, S. C.

1917. The relation of winter temperature to the distribution of winter and
spring grains in the United States. Journal American Society of Ag-
ronomy, Vol. 9, pp. 21-24.

Sanderson, E. D.

1908. The influence of minimum temperatures in limiting the northern distri-
bution of insects. Journal of Economic Entomology, Vol. 1, pp. 245-262.

Sanderson, E. D. and Peairs, L. M.

1913. The relation of temperature to insect life. New Hampshire College of
Agriculture Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin No. 7.

Seeley, D. A.

1917. Relation between temperature and crops. Monthly Weather Review,
Vol. 45, pp. 345-359.

Shelford, Victor E.

1927. An experimental investigation of the relations of the codling moth to
weather and climate. Bulletin Stale Natural History Survey of Illinois,
Vol. XVI, Art. V, pp. 311-440.

1929. Laboratory and field ecology. Baltimore.

1932. Life zones, modern ecology, and the failure of temperature summing.
Wilson Bulletin, Vol. XLIV, Sept., 1932, pp. 144-157.

Shreve, Forrest.

1914. The role of winter temperatures in determining the distribution of
plants. American Journal of Botany, Vol. 1, pp. 194-302.

Western Reserve University,

Cleveland, Ohio.

144

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

LIFE ZONES, MODERN ECOLOGY, AND THE FAILURE OF
TEMPERATURE SUMMING*

BY VICTOR E. SHELFORD

I. Introduction.

II. Fundamental Basis of Merriam’s Work.

III. Relation to Physical Conditions.

1. Merriam's View.

2. Experimental Results.

3. Analysis by students of plants.

IV. Relations of the Zones to Communities
and the Major Facts of Distribution.

Introduction

There is a large degree of confusion as to the relations of life
zones as originally described by Merriam, and the plant-animal com-
munities recognized in modern ecology. There are two points of view
in the study of distribution: (1) the faunistic-floristic view which

bases its principal regions on genera, is purely qualitative and aims
at the discovery of facts hearing upon evolution and migration as con-
sidered in this held; (2) the ecological point of view which bases its
communities (regions) upon species and varieties, is purely quantita-
tive, evaluating all important organisms on the basis of quantity and
individual potency, and aims at the discovery of facts bearing on
dynamic life relations of all kinds — fluctuations in abundance, compe-
tition, invasion, succession, etc. In order to compare this viewpoint
with that of Merriam and his followers, it is necessary to go back to
the initial thesis of Merriam (1891) and trace its later developments.

Fundamental Basis of Merriam’s Work
Merriam began his work as strictly a faunistic study. His re-
marks in his original presentation of his subject were directed mainly
as a criticism of Wallace (Geographical Distribution of Animals ,
1876), whose distribution of regions is shown in figure 29. Zoogeog-
raphical regions as worked out by Wallace and many others are based
upon genera or families, no consideration being taken of the abun-
dance, habitats, or habitat relations of the animals. The aim was to
clarify (historical) evolution, migration, and barriers. Merriam set
out to prove that Wallace’s mapping is incorrect, constructing a table
given below (Fig. 30).

*Contribution from the Zoological Laboratories, University of Illinois, No. 426.

Failure of Temperature Summing and Life Zones

145

Fig. 29. The sub-regions of Wallace, 1876.

146

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

After H. £• An th ony

Fig. 30. Merriam’s Life Zones, after Anthony.

Failure of Temperature Summing and Life Zones

147

Table I.

Gene

ric

Basis of Zo

nes.

Mammals

Birds

Total

Families Genera

Families

Genera

Families

Genera

Arid Sonoran distinguished

from humid Sonoran by

Humid Sonoran distinguished

l

10

0

24

1

34

from arid Sonoran by

Common to both arid and

l

4

0

7

1

11

humid Sonoran

Sonoran as a whole distin-

13

27

12

31

25

58

guished from Boreal by

Boreal as a whole distin-

8

41

10

100

18

141

guished from Sonoran by

Common to Boreal and Sono-

6

30

3

40

9

70

ran

8

8

18

....

26

In this table Merriam showed that more genera are different from
north to south than from east to west. The comparison is made be-
tween his Boreal and his Sonoran regions for the north and south dif-
ference and between the arid and humid portions of the Sonoran for
the east and west difference. This agrees with Wallace in one feature
of the latter's classification, hut disputes his division into Californian,
Rocky Mountain, and Alleghanian areas, as shown in Wallace’s map
(Fig. 29). I n other words he practically called Wallace’s 1, 2, and 3
(Fig. 30) Sonoran and Wallace's Canadian, Boreal. He then used these
conclusions to disprove the subdivision into Californian, Rocky Moun-
tain, and Alleghanian sections, hut presented no table to establish his
three transcontinental divisions, namely the Transition, upper Sonoran
(or Austral) and lower Sonoran (or Austral). He contended, how-
ever, that within the Sonoran zone there are more generic differences
from north to south than from east to west. In other words genera,
which are the basis of the first subdivision of the large zoogeographical
regions, range cross-wise of the North American continent.

Relations to Physical Factors
1. Merriam’s view and method. He had noted correlations be-
tween isotherms and distribution limits of birds and mammals, and
contended that their limits coincide with certain temperature phe-
nomena, particularly the total temperature above 6° Centigrade (ap-
proximately 43° F.). He insisted that temperature is the most im-
portant limiting factor, though no experiments were performed and no
inquiries as to the method of its operation were undertaken. His sums
of temperatures were calculated by the Weather Bureau. Through
some error, those given him for publication were not calculated above
6° C. but above zero Centigrade, with all days in which the mean did
not reach 6° C., omitted. A note was published in Science calling at-

148

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

tention to this error (Merriam 99), but the new totals were never
substituted. The sums published are, therefore, unlike those compiled
elsewhere.

This assumption of the sum of temperatures had received consid-
erable attention in the few decades preceding the announcement of the
Life Zone idea. Merriam, however, merely took the relation for granted

32 4 1 X 39 68 77 86 93 104 //3

Fig. 31. Developmental curves: The dash-dot straight line is the rate of

development curve assumed in summing temperature above 6° C. Compare with
the curves ol rate of development at different temperaturs for the pupae of the
codling moth and the meal worm ( Tenebrio ) at the right. In connection with
these two curves for insect pupae, an extension of the straight line portion is
shown to indicate the failure of temperature summing. It will he noted that the
straight line indicates a starting point marked a which is several degrees above
the actual threshold, being at 10° for the codling moth and at 13° for the meal
worm, while the actual threshold is three or four degrees lower. The velocity
figures in Table II are read off on the scale at the left for each temperature on
the horizontal scale.

without experimental or direct observational work on birds or mam-
mals or plants, such as described by Kendeigh (’32).

Formulae for estimating daily means above a base, from the
maxima and minima readings have long been in use, e. g. Strachey’s
1887 formula (see Shelford ’29, ’30), but apparently were not utilized

Fail ure of Temperature Summing and Life Zones

149

by Merriam. It is well known that sums of temperature to be of
biological significance must be based upon hourly or bihourly read-
ings. The writer has further conducted extensive experiments showing
that temperature sums are not a good index to rate of development or
of other biological processes (Shelford 29), a fact originally pointed
out by Krogh (1914) .

2. Comparison of actual developmental rates and rates assumed
in summing. The actual rates of development for the codling moth
were determined in detail and checked against thousands of cases in
nature, figures 31 and 32 show the actual velocities of development
as determined experimentally (codling moth, Shelford 25; meal worm,

TCMPFRATURE DFGRCET C

Fic. 32. The 6° summing curve in comparison with the actual rate of growth
of the Indian corn plant, according to Lebenbauer (from Shelford ’29).

Krogh "14, with extension to conform with the codling moth; Indian
corn plant, Lebenbauer "14, and Livingston and Shreve ’21). The
units shown on the scale at the left equal the effect of one degree
(C.) for one hour on all the curves. The straight lines (summation
curves) are based on the assumption that the effect of one degree is
the same at all temperatures.

The results of summing temperatures and developmental units
(Table II) for two weeks, April 3-10 and August 28-September 4
(Fig. 33) are shown in Table III. In this table the sums made by the
two-hour mean temperatures of figure 33 are divided by twelve to get
the degree days and degree day developmental units of Table III.

150

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

Table II

Table showing the rate of development expressed as the effect
of one degree for an hour (developmental units) in the straight line
portions of the velocity curves in figures 31 and 32.

°c.

Meal Worm Pupa

°c.

Codling Moth Pupa

°C.

Indian Corn Plant

3

0

3

0

3

0.05

4

0

4

0

4

0.10

5

0

5

0

5

0.2

6

0

6

0

6

0.3

7

0

7

0.2

7

0.4

8

0

8

0.5

8

0.6

9

0

9

1.2

9

0.8

10

0.2

10

1.7

10

1.0

11

0.6

11

2.1

11

1.2

12

1.2

12

2.7

12

1.7

13

1.8

13

3.3

13

2.0

14

2.4

14

4.1

14

2.5

15

3.0

15

5.0

15

3.0

16

3.6

16

6.0

16

3.5

17

4.2

17

7.0

17

4.3

18

5.0

18

80

18

5.0

19

6.0

19

9.0

19

6.0

20

7.0

20

10.0

20

7.0

21

8.0

21

11.0

21

80

22

9.0

22

12.0

22

9.0

23

10.0

23

13.0

23

10.0

24

11 0

24

14.0

24

11.0

25

12.0

25

15.0

25

12.0

26

13.0

26

16.0

26

13.0

27

14.0

27

17.0

27

14.0

28

15.0

28

18 0

28

15.0

29

16.0

29

19 0

29

16.0

30

17.0

30

20.0

30

16.7

31

17.8

31

20.5

31

17.0

32

18.2

32

21.0

32

16.8

33

18.3

33

20.7

33

15.7

34

17.8

34

19.8

34

14.0

35

17.0

35

18.8

35

12.7

36

15.4

36

17.5

36

11.5

37

14.2

37

16.1

37

10.0

Table III

Table showing the

application of the Merriam sums

(sums above

0 with days at or below 6° C.

omitted) of degree days,

actual sums

above 6°

C., the progress of the meal worm pupa.

of the

codling moth

pupa, and the growth of the In

dian corn plant. Degree

days may be

compared

with degree

day developmental units

in the

case of the

two insects.

April 3 t

o Julv 28 to

April 10, 1916 August 4, 1916

1. Sum of

temperature (degree days) above 6° which are

the assumed developmental units

(See 3 and 4)

8.0

154.0

2. Merriam’s sum

26.0

196.0

3. Degree

day developmental units for the pupa of

Tenebrio (See curve Fig. 31)

1.6

97.5

4. Degree

day developmen

tal units

for the codling moth

pupa ...

4.3

116.6

5. Growth

of corn plant in

i mm

9.7

326.5

6. Assumed growth for 6°

starting point (in mm.)

28.8

554.4

7. Assumet

1 growth under Merriam’s calculations (in mm.)

93.6

705.6

Failure of Temperature Summing and Life Zones

151

,_fa

o

o

vO

fa

fa

fa

C/3

— H

C/3

o

U

fa

Ml

o

i

Hi

5ZJ

o

vO

03

73

fa

C/3

a.

•*1

fa

fa

fa

fa

03

-fa

C/3

CU

fa

£

03

-a

73

fa

■*“ *

fa

£

fa

« fa

pH r-|

fa

6 a
£ §

fa -p

s

03 O
0) '

£ 6

-o

fa

„ O
* c/3

fa fa c/3
fa fa
fa 5

fa

be _

ofa fa

v/3

QJ — '

r- fa _fa

~ o *-

_faj

hi ■ fa
o o M

£ «
U

.fa Hi >

o fa o
03 -Q
m £ *

c/3

fa

-fa

u

CD

fau
fa-
fa 1

'r*~ > cd

fa fa

S £

C/3

8 j;

fa

C/3

fa #c/3 cd

t^cl

0) .>

_C s- )s - aj
- « ~ 03 -O

e -a « S *

■— m p — •—

c E-Q

£ 1,3 -

” _S2

C/3

5 g- °

e~"

03 03
fa -fa
£ ~
H -fa

03 ^

C £
fa fa

C/3 -

fa 03 ,

” w

o

-fa

03

U

C/3

CO ^
03 O
03 -fa

03 c/3

fan

i £

03

03

-fa „

° 6 ^
-fa ^ "o
fa, ■*-> o

2 fa
bL-fa
fa

fa fa fa

E —

rfa £ fc£

“ 1.5

^ S

• C/3 ■*-

CO ,rH

M » S3
_ S
o o

vO

►H

fa 3
fa o3

fal 03

fa,
fa c

fa

O 03
fa 4">

^ fa
fa "fa

03 fa

fa fa fa
fa
03

fa fa

-fa

4“* 03

o

-fa cZ
eO t-1

IS
£0 •

- £
C/3 O

o ’"fa
, fa Q

fa C/3

a, c

. fa
fa fa

_2 o £

-c

¥ orS

h*'s

which is the method used in the U. S. Weather Bureau. The reader will find discrepancies between the mean temperature less 6° and
the sum of two-hourly means less 6° divided by 12 to reduce to degree days. For example, on the last day the mean temperature is
5.5 but the sum of bihourly degrees is 12 and 1 degree day was accumulated though none was shown by the mean. In Merriam's acci-
dentally erroneous summing the first three days would be included, but the last four days would not, because their means fall below 6°.

152

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

It will be seen from a study of the three rate curves that their
form is radically different from the straight line assumption which
rises at the same rate as the temperature rises. First the straight line
type of curve does not begin until about one-fifth of the temperature
range (compatible with growth) above the threshold or starting point
has been covered. It then rises directly in proportion to the rise in
temperature through about one-third the range compatible with life.
The rate is rapidly retarded through the remainder of the life-com-
patible temperature range (less than one-half of the entire range).
The 6° C. starting point is not far from the correct threshold tem-
perature, hut the rise in rate of growth or development does not begin
to he proportional to the rise in temperature until 7° to 10° high r
and ceases to be proportional at about 30° C. (86° F.). Figure 33
shows the bihourly average temperature for the week April 3-10, 1916,
Olney, Illinois, and the week July 28-August 4, 1916, Olney, Illinois.
For the warm week the sums of the two hourly means are shown for
each day. The daily mean and daily mean above 6° C. are derived
from the sum. For the cold week the sum of two hourly means above
6° C. are given, followed by the mean derived from the maximum and
minimum and this mean less 6 degrees. There is considerable differ-
ence between this and one-twelfth the sum of two-hour means (see the
fourth and seventh days).

The Tenebrio pupa requires 104 degree C. day units for comple-
tion and the codling moth 150 degree C. day units. The Merriam
sum for the cold week is fifteen times as great as the actual progress
of the Tenebrio pupa (compare items 2 and 3, Table III). Merriam’s
sum for the hot week is more than twice the actual progress. Com-
paring items 5 and 7, Merriam’s assumed growth of the corn plant is
nearly ten times the actual growth for the cold week and more than
twice that for the hot week. The discrepancies due to the error in
summing are large and those for the simple summing of temperatures
are merely smaller. The sum-of-temperature assumptions are without
scientific foundation and must he discarded.

3. Views of students of plants. Livingston and Shreve (’21)
after a detailed analysis of climatic conditions (p. 528) in relations
to plants, state: “From the preceding discussion, and from considera-
tions presented in Part II, it appears that the system of life zones
worked out by Merriam and now rather widely used in a descriptive
way, especially by the United States Biological Survey, will require
much modification before it may become at all satisfactory to a serious
student of etiological plant geography. It is extremely unfortunate

Failure of Temperature Summing and Life Zones

153

that the actual data on which this system was originally based, and
on which its applications are based in current descriptions, do not
exist in the published literature. Neither Merriam nor any of his fol-
lowers has thus far attempted to present the actual basis for the sys-
tem in form such that a critical study of its good and bad features
may be undertaken. Perhaps this may be a main reason why the
whole subject of the climatic relations of floral and faunal areas has
received so little attention at the hands of students who are able and
willing to undertake the complex analyses which are involved in such
a subject. The publication of the charts without the data on which
they were based, together with the general and official adoption of
the system by the United States Biological Survey, have given this
important problem the appearance of having been satisfactorily solved
— of being a closed subject. Those who have employed this zone
system have either refrained from any discussion of its good and bad
characteristics, or else they have merely taken the standpoint of advo-
cates, and the lack of numerical data that are absolutely necessary for
a critical study has tended strongly to discourage such inquiries. Also,
a sort of authoritative atmosphere that seems to hang over govern-
ment publications in general, together w'ith the apparent authority
and dogmatism that invariably go with well -printed (and especially
colored) charts, to the exoteric reader, tend in the same direction, to
retard real progress. Ecological students should realize that this is
not by any means a closed subject, but that it is in a very early,
formative stage, and that it requires vastly more critical and original
study than has ever been accorded it.”

Relations of the Zones to Communities and the Major
Facts of Distribution

On his expedition to the San Francisco Mountain in 1889 Merriam
discovered the altitudinal zonation of plant and animal communities
in that region and named them primarily after the vegetation. He
recognized the Alpine Zone, Timber-line Zone, Spruce or Hudsonian
Zone, Balsam Fir or Canadian Zone, Yellow Pine Zone, Pinon Zone,
and the Desert Zone.

Starting with the San Francisco Mountain and with belts that
correspond to vegetation, Merriam carried his zones across the con-
tinent on the basis of his temperature theory, cutting the major com-
munities crosswise from west to east. Lengthwise, or from north to
south, on the great plains grassland area, the dominant grasses belong-
ing to several genera are distributed throughout. These are divided
into three zones. Likewise, the bison, pronghorn antelope, prairie

154

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

dnat

Montane

—

°Oo°

• • •
• • •

•

•

« •*: ’

~ ■ E

X X

X X

fter

WeA VER
an cf

Clements

Fic. 34. Map of plant climaxes, modified from Weaver and Clement.

• •'

Failure of Temperature Summing and Life Zones

155

dog, kit fox, in fact, all the more important grassland animals, have
their population divided between three zones, though constituting a
part of our best known plant-animal formation (hiome) .

Where the great plant-animal communities are cut across by the
life zones, subclimax plants, river margin shrubs, and animals belong-
ing to local conditions have to be the main reliance as indicators. The
trees and shrubs skirting the streams and animals such as the elk and
grizzly bear which were found among them occasionally are used
though their presence here is governed by soil and water and trees
rather than climate. Again in a few cases biotically equivalent varie-
ties of the same species may show relation to life zones. The zonal
basis is, however, entirely a secondary matter. Similar violence is
done the Deciduous Forest Community. The zones are quite gener-
ally out of accord with vegetation areas and natural communities
over the southeastern third of North America. The Transition Zone,
in particular, includes beech-maple forest, tall and short grassland,
poplar parkland, chaparral, yellow pine forest, etc.

Disagreement of the major facts of distribution with the Merriam
zones has been indicated by students both with taxonomic-faunistic
viewpoint and with a quasi-ecological viewpoint.

Disagreement with the zones is indicated also for mollusca by
Pilsbry and Ferriss ('06 ) in the following terms: “For the student

of molluscan distribution, the life zones of the United States as mapped
by Dr. Merriam emphasize the secondary and not the primary facts of
distribution. The laws of temperature control, which he has de-
veloped with keen insight, do not define transcontinental zones of pri-
mary import zoologically. These zones are secondary divisions of
vertical life areas of which the molluscan faunas were evolved in
large part independently."

In his studies of the mammals of the Flathead Lake Region in
Montana, Dice (’23B), after pointing out the correspondence of the
faunas with those one to two hundred miles away, points out difficul-
ties with life zones (p. 259) in the following terms:

“However, the correlation of these faunas with faunas of more dis-
tant regions offers greater difficulties, and little seems to he gained
by trying to homologize the faunal area of the hunchgrass near Flat-
head Lake with the Alleghanian faunal area of the eastern United
States in order to form a Transition life zone. The relationships of
the lower coniferous forests near Flathead Lake to the Canadian fauna
and those of the higher mountains to the Hudsonian fauna respec-
tively of eastern North America are also somewhat remote."

156

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

Further, Dice (’23A) takes issue with the life zones in general
with reference to the life zones of Alabama (Howell ’21). On page
43 he states, “The life zones of Merriam are founded on the belief
that there are zones of life extending transversely across the continent
of North America, in the south as well as in the north. However, no
species of mammal listed in this paper as characteristic of the Upper
Austral Zone of Alabama is listed by Hall and Grinnell as character-
istic of the corresponding zone in California." On page 47 he states,
“The distribution of the species of mammals in the State of Alabama
is not well shown by the life zone map presented. Only a relatively
small percentage of the species known from the state agree closely in
distribution with the boundaries of the life zones as mapped; and
the presentation of such a life zone map gives an appearance of
finality and precision to the classification of distribution which the
facts do not justify.

“The recognition of transcontinental Upper Austral and Lower
Austral Zones wrongly represents the faunal relationships of the parts
of these zones mapped in Alabama and California respectively.”

In the western mountains there is considerable agreement between
the plant-animal communities and life zones. Grinnell (’14) has at-
tempted to bring these two systems into harmony and has progressed
a long way toward the modern ecological viewpoint, especially from
the standpoint of biotic interaction. This would have been imprac-
ticable had he not been dealing with a mountain-dominated region, in
which the life zones and biotic communities are quite generally in
agreement.

As ordinarily presented in America, however, the two systems
are so completely out of harmony as to viewpoint, that it is best to
leave the life zones to the field of zoogeography, having for its aim
the explanation of evolutionary phenomena, but with no ideas of mod-
ern community analysis or experimental work. The American life
zone viewpoint has been carried so far in the United States Biological
Survey that it has faced modern problems of biotic balance, relation
to weather and other relations of agriculture, and grazing without suit-
able scientific foundation.

Modern ecology is concerned with the dynamics of communities.
Th eir development in denuded or other new areas has occupied a
large amount of attention and the final stage of this development is
taken to stand out as the chief guide to such mappings as are shown
in figure 31. Competition between species, both plant and animal,
control of the habitat by organisms, fluctuations in abundance and
their causes, are the chief interests of modern ecologists. Their work

Fail ure of Temperature Summing and Life Zones

157

lias essentially little relation to the mere mapping of regions based
upon a record of occurrence of genera, in which abundance, domi-
nance, or influence of species in tbe community are matters of no
concern. Such mapping comes into the field of ecology only when a
consideration of tbe long historical development of the aggregations
of species with changes in climate is sought.

European ecologists refer from time to time to North American
life zones (Elton, 27, p. 11) as ecological regions. The Russian
ecologists (Kashkarov 27, Filipjev '29B, and Kashkarov and Korovin
31) use life zones which correspond to tbe vegetation. Filipjev lias
mapped what is essentially the vegetation of Eurasia as life zones.
The secondary and purely qualitative faunistic character of tbe life
zones recognized in North America by mammalogists and ornithologists
and their lack of agreement with natural ecological regions (com-
munities) outside the western mountains has hitherto not been made
clear to them.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1928. Anthony, H. E. Field hook of North American mammals.

1923A. Dice, Lee R. Life zones and mammalian distribution. Jour. Mammalogy,
4(1) :43.

1923B. Dice, Lee R. Mammal associations and habits of the Flathead Lake
region, Montana. Ecol. 4 (3) :259-260.

1929. Elton, Charles. Animal ecology. London.

1929A. Filipjev, I. N. The locust question in Soviet Russia. International
Cong, of Ent.; 2:803-812.

1929B. Filipjev, 1. N. Life-zones in Russia and their injurious insects. Inter-
national Cong, of Ent., 2:813-820.

1914. Grinnell, Joseph. An account of the mammals and birds of the lower
Colorado valley. Univ. of Calif. Pub. in Zook, 12:51-294.

1919. Hall, H. M. and J. Grinnell. Life zone indicators in California. Proc.
Cal. Acad. Sci., 9:37-67.

1921. Howell, Arthur H. North American fauna. No. 45. U. S. Dept. Agri.

1927. Kashkarov, Daniel N. An ecological survey in the environments of the
Lake Sary-Tshilek, North Ferghana. Title of abstract. (Jour, of the
Middle Asiatic Committee on Museums and Protection of Historical Monu-
ments of Art and Nature) Title of Journal in Russian.

1931. Kashkarov, Daniel N. and E. Korovin. Essay on the analysis of the eco-
logical routes of the distribution of the llora and fauna in Middle Asia.
Title of abstract. Jour, of Ecol. and Biocenol. 1:58-87.

1932. Kendeigh, S. Charles. A study of Merriam’s temperature laws. Wilson
Bulletin, 44:129-143.

1921. Livingston, Burton E. and Forrest Shreve. Distribution of vegetation in
the United States. Publ. Carnegie Inst, of Wash. No. 284. Pp. 528-529.
1892. Merriam, C. Hart. The geographic distribution of life in North America.
Smithsonian Rep. 1891:365-415.

1899. Merriam, C. Hart. Zone temperature. Science n. s. 9(212) :116.

1906. Pilsbry, H. A. and J. H. Ferriss. Mollusca of the southwestern states.
Proc. Acad. Nat. Sciences of Philadelphia. 58:123.

1929. Shelford, Victor E. Laboratory and field ecology. Baltimore.

1930. Shelford, Victor E. Phenology and one of its modern descendants. Quart.
Rev. of Biol. 5:207-216.

1876. Wallace, Alfred R. The geographical distribution of animals.

University of Illinois,

Champaign, Illinois.

158

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

SNOW AND GOSS, THE PIONEERS IN KANSAS ORNITHOLOGY

BY MRS. H. J. TAYLOR

A rich full life expresses itself through ever increasing avenues.
It discovers the interrelation in all fields of knowledge and enters into
them with courage and enthusiasm attaining an ever widening horizon
of human understanding. When the spirit of such a life is set free it
sheds a radiance on many fields of learning and investigation, and each
claims it as the exponent of a particular field.

Francis Huntington Snow’s was such a life. During his four col-
lege years he became a thorough student of the classics. A theological
course at Andover Seminary increased his love for the classics and
deepened his human insight. When he was called to Lawrence, Kan-
sas, where the State University was about to open its doors, he looked
forward to teaching the language and literature of the classics. Snow
understood and met the needs of the fifty-five enrolled students. He
taught mathematics, geography, and the beginnings of natural science.
His love for and knowledge of Latin and Greek made a rich back-
ground but in the university of the world he became a geologist, a
zoologist, a botanist, an entomologist, an ornithologist. This paper
concerns itself primarily with F. H. Snow, the ornithologist.

Francis Huntington Snow was born in Fitchburg, Massachusetts,
June 29, 1840. He died at Delafield, Wisconsin, September 21, 1908.
He was buried in Lawrence, Kansas.1

In 1862, at the age of twenty-two years, Snow was graduated from
Williams College. He was appointed valedictorian by the faculty, a
singular honor among classmates such as Frank Carter, who in 1881
became president of Williams College, Professor George Raymond,
and Professor E. H. Griffin, who with others, have attained distinc-
tion. The promise of Snow’s young manhood was abundantly ful-
filled in his sixty-eight years.

In Kansas the State University was coming into being. Its doors
were to open in September, 1866. A call to occupy a chair in the
new institution was, through the recommendation of Governor Charles
Robinson, extended to F. H. Snow, and he became one of the three men
constituting the first faculty of the University of Kansas. He remained
active in this university until his death in 1908. He had served forty-
two years. In 1881 Professor Snow received the degree of Ph. D. from
Williams College, and that of LL. D. from Princeton in 1890. He was
a member of the honorary societies of Sigma Xi and Phi Beta Kappa.

’From a letter received by me in September, 1931, from Professor Snow’s
daughter, Mrs. Martha Snow Brown.

Biographies of Snow and Goss

159

Francis Huntington Snow, 1840-1908

160

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

A paper read by Doctor Snow before ihe Academy of Science at
Topeka, January 2, 1903, 2 * follows in part: “When the writer of this

paper arrived in Lawrence, Kan., in the last week of August, 1866,
about ten days before tbe opening of tbe State University, he took the
earliest opportunity to call upon the chancellor of the University. He
took it for granted that some preliminary arrangements would be
necessary before the arrival of the important day which should usher
into existence so important an institution as that with which he was
to be connected as a member of its first faculty. The chancellor . . .
informed him that nothing could be done until tbe opening day, and
advised him to ‘get a gun and go shooting’. This advice was con-
scientiously followed, with tbe result that the writer soon became
deeply interested in the birds of Kansas, and began to prepare a
catalogue. He bad tbe entire field to himself, there being no other
person in the state for several years who was known to him as having
an interest in ornithology. He soon organized among bis students an
enthusiastic class in zoology, and instituted an ornithological survey. . .
In . . . 1872, he published the first edition of his Catalogue of the Birds
of Kansas, in the Kansas Educational Journal. The list of birds in this
catalogue included 239 species and varieties, of which thirty-two species
were inserted on the authority of Dr. T. M. Brewer, of Boston. . . I
published no additional complete list of the birds of Kansas, having
left the formal continuance of this work to my friend. Col. N. S. Goss,
so long as he lived. Thus, all together, the author of this paper, dur-
ing the last third of the nineteenth century, had catalogued 305 species
and nine varieties of Kansas birds, or a total of 314 numbers or
entries.

“Up to the year 1878 no other citizen of Kansas had published any
facts regarding the birds of Kansas. In that year Col. N. S. Goss
began bis notes upon this subject in an article on tbe ‘Breeding of the
Duck Hawk in Trees.' . . . On July 25, 1879, he wrote me that he had
in his collection 154 species of Kansas birds. ... In the same year he
made his first addition to tbe list of Kansas birds- — Bonaparte's Gull. . .
He continued to increase our knowledge of the bird fauna of Kansas
until be had added thirty-one species and races to tbe list.”

In 1881 Prof. Snow reported the capture of a “Snake-bird” in
Kansas to Dr. Elliott Cones, who made it the subject of a note in the
Bulletin of the Nuttall Ornithological Club.4 Col. Goss, in his “His-

2Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, Vol. XVIII, p. 154.

'‘Bull. Nutt. Ornith. Club, 1882, Vol.' VII, p. 61.

Biographies of Snow and Goss

161

tory of the Birds of Kansas”5 makes the following comments on this
species :

"'A rare summer visitant. . . This species was captured within
the State, in the Solomon valley, in August, 1881, by Mr. C. W. Smith,
ol Stockton; and May 1st, 1888, Mr. Daniel Lambert, of Wilburn,
Ford county, shot, in the northern part of Meade county, on Crooked
Creek, five of the birds, out of a small llock that arrived a few days
before and together. . . ”

In 1913, C. D. Bunker published “The Birds of Kansas.”6 This
report merely says of the Water-Turkey: “Catalogued as accidental
by Doctor Snow. No Kansas collected specimen in the University
Museum.”

In the same paper the author says: “The study of Kansas birds,

while not having been taken up by the government surveys, has been
the subject of considerable work. Doctor Snow was the first scientist
in the field. He began his study of Kansas birds upon his arrival at
the University in 1866, and continued his interest until dis death. .

In his paper on “Relation of Birds to Horticulture,”7 Professor
Snow states the food habits of various species of birds and points
out their value as insect eaters. Of the English Sparrow he says:
“. . . a colony . . . has been securely established at Topeka. ... I have
often been asked my opinion as to the advisability of introducing the
English Sparrow into Kansas as a protection against insects . . .
authorities differ widely upon this question. ... It is claimed by Dr.
Coues . . . that ‘there is no occasion for these birds in this country,
and that the good they do in destroying certain insects has been over-
rated.’ Mr. Thomas Gentry, of Germantown, Pa., states that the
sparrows . . . ‘have become quite common in the surrounding country,
and are driving away the robins | and] bluebirds . . . [the sparrows]
have been of immense service in ridding our squares of the cater-
pillars, which were once so prevalent and so annoying. . .' Dr. Brewer
says: ‘We have the sparrows in great abundance in Boston, and for six
years I have day after day, summer and winter, closely watched them.
They never molest, attack or try to drive away any birds except their
own species. . . . The bluebirds do molest and drive off the sparrows,
and have been known to take possession of and keep boxes put up for
and belonging to the sparrow.’ Mr. Stephen Gould, of Newport, R. I..
says: . . [the sparrow] seems to court the society of other birds, and

never have the birds been so abundant on our place. . . I may add

•'■History of the Birds of Kansas, 1891. By N. S. Goss. P. 37.
r,Kan. Univ. Sci. Bull., Vol. VII, No. 5, June, 1913, pp. 137458.
Transactions of the Kansas State Horticultural Society, 1876, pp. 62-75.

162

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

that the report of the French parliament, based upon the most thorough
scientific observations, places the English Sparrow at the head of the
useful birds of France. ... I cannot close this address without calling
your attention to the great advantage which would be derived by the
State if in our public schools instruction should be regularly given
upon these practical subjects which are so closely related to our daily
lives. Much of the time now spent by our children in the school room
is wasted in the vain attempt to comprehend abstract principles of
arithmetic and grammar, and in memorizing unimportant . . . details.”

Professor Snow was the pioneer in Kansas ornithology. This
work brought him recognition among scientific men. Fie attained in
many fields of natural science. It was in the field of entomology that
he attained not only national but international scientific recognition.

My own pioneer days on a Wisconsin farm were vividly recalled
when I read of Professor Snow's efforts to save the wheat and corn
fields of Kansas from the chinch-bug. We knew this pest in the '70’s.
Every child in the family knew and dreaded the sign of the chinch-bug.
In well headed wheat fields stalks began to fall due to rust on the
stem. It was the work of the chinch-bug.

Between the years 1885-1896 Professor Snow published seventeen
papers on this destructive insect, four of these appearing in 1892. From
a letter I received in September, 1931, from a former student of Snow
I quote: “One of his more spectacular pieces of work was to destroy

the chinch-bug which was taking heavy tribute from the farmers' crops.
To accomplish this he found a fungus which was preying upon the
bugs and proceeded to cultivate the fungus and to send it out to the
farmers of stricken districts in small parcels, by mail, with instructions
that they distribute tbe fungus where chinch-bugs were thickest. In
this way he hoped that the parasite would spread and the bugs would
be destroyed. For a number of years the state granted a special ap-
propriation to carry on this work in a special laboratory in the Uni-
versity. Finally it was abandoned as ineffectual.”

Although Professor Snow's experiment failed, it was nevertheless
of far reaching and great value in awakening the farmers of the middle
west to the thought that in scientific investigation lay the hope of con-
trolling the pests of agriculture and horticulture. I recall my father
saying that a professor in the Kansas University had the right idea
when he studied practical things like chinch-bugs. I never knew the
name of the professor until I began to write this paper.

Biographies of Snow and Goss

163

From 1872-1907 Snow conducted twenty-six collecting expeditions
mainly for insects. E. Miller says:8 “At the present time the ento-
mological collection contains over 21,000 species and 275,000 speci-
mens of insects, the largest collection in the United States.” L. L.
Dyche, several times a member of Snow’s expedition, says:9 “In 1877
Professor Snow conducted an expedition to Wallace county, Kansas . . .
the party collected about 1500 specimens of the then rare species of
tiger-beetle, Amblychyla cylindriformis. In 1876, . . . these beetles
were reported to have sold at from five to fifteen dollars for a single
specimen. . .” Through exchanges with this beetle many specimens
were added to the University Museum. Shortly after the death of
Snow, by an act of the regents, the museum collection became The
Francis Huntington Snow Entomological Collection.

Vernon L. Kellogg says:10 “He [Snow] was the pioneer natural-
ist of Kansas, and for thirty years its most conspicuous representative
in meteorology, botany, ornithology, and entomology. . . . His enthu-
siasm and energy were contagious. He made first-class men out of
the best of us, and something at least worthwhile out of the worst
of us. . .”

As student, teacher, friend. Snow left a deep impress. “I studied
under Snow” will be a valued credential so long as an alumnus re-
mains who can say it. Snow’s college training was received from
rare men. Among his teachers at Williams were Mark Hopkins and
his brother Professor Albert Hopkins and that great spiritual force
and interpreter of life, John Bascom. He also studied under Agassiz
and came under the influence of David Starr Jordan. Men were drawn
to Snow by his sincere and charming personality.

Not only to the University of Kansas but to the entire state did
Francis Snow give great personal service. He was one of seventeen
men to organize the Academy of Science in 1868. Five times was he
elected its president. In 1885 the legislature named in his honor
Snow Hall of Natural History. At the dedication Professor Snow was
carried to and from the building on the shoulders of students.

J. W. Green, student of Professor Snow, says:11 “At his home or
at the home of his friend, the instructor and toiler disappeared, and
we came into contact with a most genial, lovable, and companionable
man. As husband, father, friend, gentleman, and scholar, his life was

8Kan. Acad. Sci., Vol. XXII, p. 24, 1908.

9 1 b i d . , p. 24.

10Journal Economic Ent., Vol. 2, p. 84.

“Graduate Mag. Univ. Kan., Vol. VII, January, 1909, p. 128.

164

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

not only above reproach, but in bim, sweetness of disposition, gentle-
ness of manner, and consideration for others were mingled with per-
fect integrity."

Unspoken expression may reveal depth of feeling more fully than
words. In writing Professor Snow’s obituary, Vernon Kellogg says in
conclusion:12 “My personals feelings I have given no rein at all. As
student, assistant, colleague and intimate friend of Francis H. Snow for
twenty-five years, I have in my mind and heart such a wealth of dear
memory that I do not trust myself even a word or phrase of personal
appreciation. If I should, it would be too extravagant for publicity,
too insufficient for my own satisfaction."

An alumnus is proud of bis alma mater. Such as Francis Hunt-
ington Snow make alma mater proud of the alumnus. Snow’s services
made the University of Kansas and the State his debtor. His spirit
has enriched the world.

-K* -- -V- -v-

The names of F. H. Snow and N. S. Goss are linked as pioneers
in Kansas ornithology. Goss died over forty years ago. The data
on his life contained in this paper are largely from files of the Topeka
State Journal, issues of March 10 and 12, 1891, and a “Sketch of
Goss" by Mary Jackson of which the Topeka Journal says: It is “the
only authorized and authentic biography of Colonel N. S. Goss’’.

Nathaniel Stic.kney Goss, the ornithologist and naturalist, was
born of Puritan stock in Lancaster, New Hampshire, June 8, 1826. He
died at Neosho Falls, Kansas, March 10, 1891. He was buried in
Topeka Cemetery in Kansas.

Goss was but a youth when his father lost his property and the
family came west and settled in Pewaukee, Wisconsin. Here he at-
tended the district school and the local academy. In 1854, at the age
of twenty-eight years, he married Miss Emma F. Brown, of Pewaukee.
Two years later be moved to Waverly, Iowa, with a view to entering
the banking business. While be was making arrangements for his
location, his bride of only two years died. Overcome by this loss he
left Iowa in the spring of 1857. With horse and buggy he traveled
to Kansas, a recently made territory, and settled on the Neosho river
where now stands the city of Neosho Falls. When the little settle-
ment was laid out for a town site Goss became its first postmaster.
In 1858 a grist mill was established and be sold flour and meal to the
Indians, receiving in payment Indian ponies, buffalo robes, and money.

12Journal Economic Ent., Vol. 2, 1909, pp. 83-85.

Biographies of Snow and Goss

165

Nathaniel Stickney Goss, 1826-1891

166

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

Goss had taken a keen interest in the development of this new
territory. He was the leader in public affairs. In 1860 he was elected
and commissioned major. In 1863 he was made lieutenant-colonel
of the Sixteenth Kansas Militia Cavalry. In 1867 he was appointed
register of the land office at Humbolt. Two years later he resigned
to become attorney for the Missouri, Kansas, and Texas Railway with
headquarters at Neosho Falls. Through his efforts the road was put
through Neosho Valley. In 1866 the stockholders elected him presi-
dent. He was called the ‘"Father of Neosho Valley”.

The valley of the Neosho River was familiar ground to Goss.
Along its banks and over the Kansas prairie he had walked noting
the bird life and collecting specimens. From early childhood the deep
interest of his life lay in roaming fields and forests to study life in
its natural surroundings. When he had made a comfortable fortune
he devoted most of his time to the study of birds and the preparation
of bird skins. He traveled widely to know birds. From the Everglades
of Florida he followed the western coast line to the Gulf of Cali-
fornia. He visited the Rockies and the Sierra Nevadas. The fruit
of his labors gave a marvelous collection to the State of Kansas. In
the fall of 1881 he took up his residence in Topeka. In this same
year he donated his entire collection to the state upon the condition
that it be known as “The Goss Ornithological Collection” and that he
be the custodian during his life time. The offer was accepted. The
legislature set apart a room for the collection and also one for Goss’s
own use.*

In 1883 he published a catalogue of the birds of Kansas, based
upon observations in the field and knowledge gathered during a resi-
dence of over twenty-six years in Kansas. The catalogue embraced
forty-nine families and 320 species and subspecies. In 1886 he re-
vised the catalogue, increasing the species to 335.

The American Ornithologists’ Union was established in New York
in 1883. “At the first congress forty-seven ornithologists were elected
to active membership.”13 Colonel Goss was one of the original forty-

*The following information concerning the present condition of the Goss
Collection is taken from a letter written by Mr. Kirke Mechem, Secretary of the
Kansas State Historical Society, at Topeka, April 15, 1932:

“The Goss collection of birds is now housed in the museum of the Kansas
State Historical Society on the fourth floor of the Memorial Building. It has
been there since 1914. It is in very good condition although the birds at present
need a thorough cleaning.

“The collection comprises 1523 birds of 756 species. The collection is unique
in that each species of birds is mated. I understand that Col. Goss sometimes
had to wait several years before he could mate some of these birds. There have
been no additions to the collection since it was given to the Society.”

Biographies of Snow and Goss

167

seven members. This honor came to him unsought and without his
knowledge. “Since the organization of the A. 0. U. Colonel Goss
has never failed to attend its meetings. ... At the last meeting when
the place of the next Congress was under discussion ... he said . . .
‘wherever it is held. Colonel Goss will be there if he is alive.’ ”14

The one ambition of his life was the completion and publication
of the “History of the Birds of Kansas.” This book came from the
press a few days before his death. It was the summing up and com-
pletion of his life. “As a hand book or manual of the birds of a
definite area. Colonel Goss’s ‘History of the Birds of Kansas’ might
in many ways serve as a model to future writers of similar works. As
its title indicates, the work is strictly limited to the birds known to
occur within the State of Kansas, which now number 343 species and
subspecies . . . the plates are a novel feature, and, as an inexpensive
method of illustration, may be regarded as a success, quite excelling
in effectiveness any previous attempt at photo-engraving in ornithology
we have seen. In fact, the plates are little less than a revelation re-
specting the possibilities of photogravure as an aid in ornithological
illustration. The figures are all from mounted specimens in the ‘Goss
Ornithological Collection' . . .”15

In the preface to his “History of the Birds of Kansas”, Colonel
Goss says: “. . . It embraces 343 species and subspecies. . . . The photo-
gravure illustrations represent 529 mounted birds (my own work) in
‘The Goss Ornithological Collection.’ The characteristic descriptions
of the different orders, families, genera, species and races are chiefly
from ‘North American Land and Water Birds,’ by Baird, Brewer and
Ridgway ... I have also quoted freely from Mr. Ridgway’s ‘Manual’
and ‘Birds of Illinois,’ and occasionally from Dr. Elliott Coues’ Tvey
to North American Birds.’ ”

Goss’s “History of the Birds of Kansas” is pleasant as well as
instructive reading. He says of the Whistling Swan: “I have one in
the ‘Goss Ornithological Collection,’ shot March 12th, 1875, in the
Neosho valley. ... In olden times, when credulity largely prevailed
among the people, the most fabulous and absurd stories were readily
believed. The Swans were supposed to sing sweetly, especially when
dying. This belief seems to have been based upon the fable, that the
soul of Orpheus was transmigrated into a Swan, and for this reason
these birds were held in veneration. The Greek and Latin poets

^Bird-Lore, Vol. I, 1899, p. 147.
14Auk, Vol. VIII, 1891, p. 246.
ir,Auk, Vol. VIII, 1891, pp. 228-229.

168

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

praised its song, and the philosophers and historians recorded it as a
fact. I quote from three of the most noted. Socrates says: ‘When
Swans perceive approaching death, they sing more merrily than before,
because of the joy they have in going to the God they serve.’ Aris-
totle says: ‘Swans are wont to sing, particularly when about to die.’
And Cicero says of Lucius Crassus, that ‘He spake with the divine
voice of a Swan about to die.’ Pliny, one of tbe first to doubt, says:
‘Some affirm that Swans sing lamentably a little before death, but
untruly, I suppose, for experience in many lias shown the contrary.'
(Page 106-107.)

Colonel Goss’s friends were unnumbered, a few were intimate.
Not many days after the death of General Sherman, in 1879, Colonel
Goss said to Judge Humphrey: “All I wish when I am dead is that

some friend will stand beside my grave and say that 1 have led an
honest life, and have not been without good deeds or lasting friend-
ships, for no man of whom that can be said in truth has lived in vain.'
The Judge replied: “I love you as a brother, and you have been my
true kind friend, and if I should survive you I shall . . . say that you
have not only not lived in vain but the world has been better for your
existence."

Colonel Goss was not a churchman. He believed in the religion
of humanity and never let an opportunity pass to do a kind act or
help a fellow being in distress. When the “History of the Birds of
Kansas" came from the press Goss said to Judge Humphrey: “I wish

that book to be my monument. I care nothing for a shaft of stone to
mark my resting place, I want to leave my monument to humanity.
My work is now ended and hereafter I will play.”

Colonel Goss was in splendid spirit when his book came from
the press, and be went to Neosho Falls to spend a few days with his
nephew, C. W. Waterman. A few days later, on the morning of March
10, 1891, the governor’s office in Topeka received a dispatch from
C. W. Waterman of Neosho Falls. It stated that Colonel Goss was
stricken down, presumably with heart disease, while walking along
the street.

After passing resolutions on the death of Colonel Goss the legis-
lature adjourned. Upon its arrival, the body was taken directly to
the senate chamber where it was placed in state in front of the presi-
dent's desk. Upon the casket, surrounded by a wealth of flowers, was
placed the “History of the Birds of Kansas’ . The room containing
The Goss Ornithological Collection, as well as Colonel Goss’s private
room, was draped in mourning. The State House was closed on the

Biographies of Snow and Goss

169

day of the funeral. At the service Dr. F. H. Snow, then Chancellor
of the University of Kansas, spoke eloquently upon the life of Colonel
Goss and the heritage he left to the state.

When Colonel Goss took up his residence in Topeka in 1881 he
bought a lot in the Topeka Cemetery. The remains of his wife, which
for twenty-five years had rested in Pewaukee, Wisconsin, he had had
reinterred in Topeka with the expressed wish that he be laid by her
side.

On March 12, 1891, the remains of Nathaniel Stickney Goss were
laid to rest in the Topeka Cemetery beside those of the companion he
had lost long since and loved the while.

The following paragraphs, taken from the Topeka State Journal
for March 12, 1891, are self-explanatory, and are probably of suffi-
cient interest to justify reproducing in full:

“A special from Atchison to the ‘Globe-Democrat’ says: Ex-State superin-

tendent of insurance, R. B. Morris, of this city, who was a close personal friend
of the late Col. N. S. Goss, of Topeka, relates an interesting circumstance of that
gentleman’s life in connection with the gift of his ornithological collection to
the state.

“When Col. Goss gave the state the collection, he exacted a condition that
the state should provide a suitable room in which to keep the collection and also
a room for his own private use. This the state faithfully complied with. Soon
after making the gift, Col. Goss, who was a wealthy man, made a will in which
he bequeathed a large sum of money for the maintenance and increase of the
collection.

“Unfortunately this was afterward changed and the item of maintenance
cut out. It came about in this way: A little more than a year ago Secretary of
State Higgins gave an old soldier a lunch-stand privilege in the main hall of the
State House. The old soldier set up his stand in close proximity to the orni-
thological room, and the crowds that daily visited the collection were always
loaded with edibles.

“This offended Col. Goss, and he protested against the presence of the lunch-
stand, but Mr. Higgins refused to yield and the old soldier held possession. Col.
Goss, who took great pride in the collection, regarded the act of Mr. Higgins
as a lack of appreciation of the gilt, and he at once had his friend, Railroad
Commissioner Humphrey, prepare a new will omitting the bequest to the state.

“Had he not given his word that the ornithological collection should become
the property of the state, this, too, would have been withdrawn. The story as
here told was received by Mr. Morris from Col. Goss himself.”

And at another place in the same issue occurs the following
version :

“It is stated that Colonel Goss a few weeks .since added a codicil to his will,
in which he willed his library and a large collection of relics and curios which
he had gathered on his trips to various sections, to the state university, and that
he changed the provision which he had previously made, giving the state a large
sum of money for the maintenance of the ‘Goss Ornithological Collection’, willing
the amount to his nephew, C. W. Waterman, of Neosho Falls.

“He made the latter change, it is said, because the secretary of state allowed
a cigar stand to be maintained in the hall of the east wing of the capitol. Colonel
Goss detested tobacco and was much perturbed when the cigar stand was estab-
lished there by the guide. He protested against it, and his wishes not being
complied with, he considered it a personal affront.”

Berkeley, California.

170

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

NOTES FROM CENTRAL IOWA

BY PHILIP A. DUMONT

So very little has been published concerning late spring migration
in central Iowa that some observations made in Polk, Dallas, Greene,
Boone, and Hamilton Counties, from June 4 to 14, 1928, and from
May 26 to June 21, 1929, are here submitted. Several of the field
trips were taken with Mr. Arthur T. Watson and Mr. Kenneth R. Nelson
of Des Moines. Mr. Walter Rosene of Ogden, and Mrs. John E. Stewart
and Miss Olivia McCabe of Des Moines, were each on at least one
trip with us.

In 1928 migration continued much later than usual, as is indicated
by the number of birds seen on a field trip which Watson, Nelson, and
I took on June 6 in Dallas, Boone, and Polk Counties. One hundred
and ten species of birds were observed, including eleven species of
shore birds. Of the fourteen kinds of shore birds seen during the
eleven days of 1928 in Iowa, at least nine were recorded on a later
date than any given for the state by Bent (Bull. U. S. Nat. Mus., 142,
1927; and 146, 1929).

On June 3, 1929, Watson, Nelson, and I spent over eighteen hours
on a field trip in Dallas, Boone, and Polk Counties, and secured a list
totaling 115 species. While only two species of transient shore birds
were seen on this trip, during the first week of June in 1928, nine
species were seen by us in the same region. Another trip taken on
June 6, 1929, entirely within Polk County, resulted in a total of 101,
including seven species not seen on June 3.

The summer of 1929 was characterized by an influx of Mocking-
birds, by several breeding records of the Cedar Waxwing, and by the
utter lack of migrating shore birds.

The List

Holboell’s Grebe. Colymbus grisegena holboelli. A flock of
six birds carefully observed at Long Pond, seven miles west of Perry,
Dallas County, on June 6, 1928. A male observed at BrentoiTs Slough,
four miles west of Camp Dodge, Polk County, June 6, 1929. The
recording of this species on such late dates is, of course, unusual. A
more detailed account will be found in the September, 1929, number
of the Wilson Bulletin, pp. 191-192.

Horned Grebe. Colymbus auritus. An adult in breeding plumage
was on Little Wall Lake, three miles south of Jewell. Hamilton
County, June 11, 1928.

Notes from Central Iowa

171

Gadwall. Chaulelasmus streperus. On May 30, 1929, while at
Little Wall Lake, Hamilton County, I had the unique experience of
catching a Gadwall in my hands. I took it back to Des Moines with
me for observation. Unfortunately it died the next morning. Evi:
dently the bird was molting into the “eclipse” plumage, as the old
primaries were quite worn and some of the new ones were already
well advanced. This molting, no doubt, caused the bird’s sickness
and the resulting indifference to capture. In making up the skin no
sign of injury could be found. The stomach was about half filled
with pieces of pond-weeds and some form of small crustaceans. The
specimen, a male, is now in Mr. Nelson’s collection. Another bird
was seen at Long Pond on June 3, 1929.

American Pintail. Dafila acuta tzitzihoa. Members of the Des
Moines Audubon Society reported a male Pintail on a small pond at
East 14th Street and Euclid Avenue, Des Moines, Polk County. The
bird was present all through May and was seen by the writer on
June 4, 1928.

Canvas-back. Nyroca valisineria. A pair at Little Wall Lake on
June 11, 1928, and the male was seen again on the following day.

Ruddy Duck. Erismatura. jamaicensis rubida. One female seen
in a marsh east of Jewell on May 30, 1929; one at Long Pond. June
3, 1929; and one at Brenton’s Slough on June 12, 1929.

Hooded Merganser. Lophodytes cucullatus. Two females were
observed at Little Wall Lake, five miles south of Jewell, Hamilton
County, May 30, 1929; one female seen with a flock of Blue-winged
Teal, Mallard, a Gadwall and a Ruddy Duck on Long Pond, June 3,
1929. Because of the rareness of this species as a breeder in Iowa,
it is quite probable that these were late migrants. A pair of these
birds were found by Miss Olivia McCabe on a small pool of water in
Des Moines, June 21, 1923. This pool, surrounded by willows and
cat-tails, was within fifty yards of one of the principal avenues in the
city. Because of the late date and of the fact that this was apparently
a mated pair, they were reported as breeding, although I am not aware
that the nest was found.

American Merganser. Mergus merganser americanus. A single
female (not a cripple), seen on a small pond four miles north of
Ogden, June 13, 1929. The latest spring departure date for this species
recorded in Anderson’s “Birds of Iowa” is May 16, in Winneshiek
County.

172

The Wilson Bulletn — September, 1932

Anatidae. An analysis of the ducks found in central Iowa in
June, 1929, is as follows: Common Mallard, common breeder; Gad-

wall, late migrant; American Pintail, a pair on June 3, and a female
on June 6, probably breeding, no nests found; Blue-winged Teal, most
common breeder; Shoveller, two males on June 3, and one male on
June 6, probably breeding, no nests found; Lesser Scaup Duck, two on
June 6, three males and one female on June 12, probably either late
migrants or non-breeding birds; Buddy Duck, late migrant; Hooded
Merganser, probably late migrant; American Merganser, late migrant.

Broad-winged Hawk. Buteo platypterus platypterus. The status
of this species in Polk County has been given intensive study by several
members of the Des Moines Audubon Society. A pair nesting in
Crocker Woods, along the Des Moines River, have been found to be
permanent residents. These birds were reported in the Bird Lore
Christmas Census for 1927 and 1928. Mr. Watson has found them
present during each month for two years and he furnished the data on
the 1928 nesting recorded by me in the “Birds of Polk County, Iowa”.
About September, 1928, the female of the pair mentioned in the above
account was noticed to have half of a third primary broken off and
this conspicuous field mark served as a definite check on the bird's
activities all winter, and until it molted the next summer.

Ferruginous Rough-leg. Buteo regalis. A pair of these hawks
was seen at Brenton's Slough, west of Camp Dodge, on May 5, 1929,
by Mr. and Mrs. John E. Stewart of Des Moines, and positively identi-
fied by us on June 6, 1929. Because of the similarity of this region
to the rolling hills of western Nebraska we thought there might be a
possibility of their breeding. But a search of the few trees along the
stream disclosed no nest. Neither were the birds seen after that date.
(See also Bull. Iowa Orn. Union, vii, 1929).

Duck Hawk. Falco peregrinus anatum. An immature female at
Camp Mitigwa, five miles north of Woodward, Boone County, on
June 6, 1928.

Ruddy Turnstone. Arenaria inter pres morinella. A male in
breeding plumage was seen at Little Wall Lake, June 11, 1928. I know
of only one other occurrence of this species in central Iowa and that is
of an unpublished observation by Arthur T. Watson of a single bird
seen on June 5, 1926, flying up the Des Moines River near Camp
Douglas, about six miles northwest of Des Moines.

Notes from Central Iowa

173

Upland Plover. Bartramia longicauda. One juvenal, at least
two weeks old, was caught to be photographed at Paton, Greene County,
June 12, 1928.

Eastern Solitary Sandpiper. Tringa solitaria solitaria. A single
bird observed at Fisher’s Lake, twelve miles north of Des Moines, on
June 3, 1928. Undoubtedly this was a late north-bound migrant.

Lesser Yeli.ow-legs. Totanus flavipes. At Long Pond, June 6,
1928, a single bird crippled in one leg, and two birds there on June 12.

Pectoral Sandpiper. Pisobia melanotos. One at Little Wall
Lake, June 12, 1928. Apparently a normal bird and uninjured.

White-rumped Sandpiper. Pisobia fuscicollis. In 1928 a flock of
fifteen at Long Pond on June 6; seven at Little Wall Lake on June 11;
and ten at Long Pond on June 12.

Baird's Sandpiper. Pisobia bairdi. Six at Long Pond on June
6, 1928, one at Little Wall Lake on June 11, 1928, and one at Long
Pond on June 12. This is a later spring migration date than has been
recorded by Bent for this species in the United States.

Least Sandpiper. Pisobia minutilla. Two at Long Pond, June
6, 1929.

Red-backed Sandpiper. Pelidna alpina sakhalina. Observed on
both trips to Long Pond in 1928. Three on June 6 and two on June 12.

Semipalmated Sandpiper. Ereunetes pusillus. In 1928 one was
seen at Brenton’s Slough four miles west of Camp Dodge, Polk County,
on June 5; ten at Long Pond, June 6; and three at the same place on
June 12. Two of the three had injured legs.

Sanderling. Crocethia alba. A single bird still in the gray winter
plumage at Long Pond on June 6, 1928. This species is also a strag-
gler through the central part of the state.

Bonaparte’s Gull. Larus Philadelphia. A single bird was ob-
served at Long Pond on June 6, 1928. Although found along the
larger rivers and lakes of the state, it is not common at any time in the
interior.

Least Tern. Sterna antillarum antillarum. A single bird noted
flying over a small pond at East 14th Street and Euclid Avenue, Des
Moines, May 27, 1929. The only Polk County record prior to 1929
for this species was of two birds seen by Kenneth R. Nelson, June 16,
1922, on the Des Moines River.

Black Tern. Chlidonias nigra surinamensis. Although formerly
a common breeder in central Iowa, this species has been crowded out

174

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

in late years by lack of suitable nesting areas — the result of draining
the marshes and small ponds. Numbers of these birds were seen in
June, 1928, and a flock of thirty-five was seen June 13, 1929, north of
Ogden, Boone County. However, no nests were discovered at Long
Pond, a likely breeding place, seven miles west of Perry, Dallas
County.

Yellow-billed Cuckoo. Coccyzus americajius americanus.

Black-billed Cuckoo. Coccyzus erythropthalmus. The summer
of 1929 witnessed the periodic appearance of the “17-year locust’" or
Periodical Cicada ( Magicicada septendecim ) in tremendous numbers,
at least in central Iowa. Concurrently, large numbers of both Yellow
and Black-billed Cuckoos appeared, and were found feeding on these
pupae. Besides the cuckoos, the Rose-breasted Grosbeak was the only
other species noted feeding on the cicada.

Western Burrowing Owl. Speolyto cujiicularia hypugaea. On
May 9, 1928, a farmer living two miles northwest of Paton, Greene
County, called Mr. E. W. Sells, of the same town, to report that four
long-legged birds were staying around a ground hog hole in one of his
fields. Mr. Sells visited the field on May 12, and saw two of the birds
which he identified as Western Burrowing Owls. In writing to Mr.
Walter M. Rosene, of Ogden, Mr. Sells gave him all the information
and urged him to make a trip to Paton to confirm the identification.
June 12, Robert Walker, Walter Rosene, Kenneth Nelson, and the writer
accompanied by Mr. Sells, visited the same place and found one
WYstern Burrowing Owl. The second bird undoubtedly was on the
nest at that time as both were seen again on June 26, when Mr. Rosene
spent the afternoon trying to photograph them. He succeeded in ob-
taining one picture. Mr. Sells saw six owls together later in the sum-
mer and concluded that four young grew to maturity. They were seen
in the field until the latter part of October.

WY secured about forty pellets on June 12 and several were ex-
amined by the late W. DeW. Miller, of the American Museum of
Natural History, New York. These showed a large percentage of
rodents while others found by Mr. Sells later in the summer consisted
largely of beetles.

Dr. B. H. Bailey (Raptorial Birds of Iowa, 1918, pp. 231-233),
records the W estern Burrowing Owl from eight counties within the
state. In five of these counties (Lyon, Sioux, Plymouth, Woodbury,
and Sac), it has been reported as breeding, and in the other three
(Dickinson, Kossuth, and Linn) its occurrence is only casual. Mr.

Notes from Central Iowa

175

G. H. Berry’s observations of this owl, made in the vicinity of Hawar-
den, Sioux County, and Lincoln County, South Dakota, are recorded
by Anderson in his ‘‘Birds of Iowa”. This record of Berry’s is cited
by Dr. Bailey hut incorrectly credited to Linn County.

Therefore the nesting of the pair in Greene County is an extension
south and east of the known breeding range of this owl.

Acadian Flycatcher. Empidonax virescens. In 1929 a mated
pair was seen near Camp Mitigwa, five miles north of Woodward,
Boone County, June 3; a nest containing four eggs was found by
Messrs. Nelson and Watson in Crocker Woods, Des Moines, June 7.
The nest, a loose structure made of plant-fiber and grass, was hanging
in the drooping branch of a locust tree, three and a half feet above the
ground. The eggs were hatched by June 20.

Olive-sided Flycatcher. Nuttallornis mesoleucus. A late mi-
grant noted on June 10, 1928, along the Raccoon River southwest of
Des Moines. The whitish tufts of feathers on either side of the rump
and extending on the flanks under the wings were quite conspicuous in
this individual.

Tyrannidae. A summary of the members of this family found
in Central Iowa in June, 1929, is as follows: Eastern Kingbird, com-

mon breeder; Northern Crested Flycatcher, common breeder; Eastern
Phoebe, common breeder; Acadian Flycatcher, uncommon breeder;
Alder Flycatcher, rather common breeder — several nests at Des Moines;
Least Flycatcher, uncommon breeder; Eastern Wood Pewee, common
breeder; and Olive-sided Flycatcher, very late migrant, uncommon-
one seen south of Valley Junction, June 6. The Yellow-bellied Fly-
catcher is a fairly common migrant in May, and the Arkansas King-
bird is a rare migrant, at least through Polk County.

Northern Cliff Swallow. Petrochelidon albifrons albifrons.
One nest found by A. T. Watson, in a culvert northeast of Des Moines
on June 1, 1929. Mr. Nelson and I found two pairs nesting near
Moran, Dallas County, June 12, 1929. The nests were under the eaves
of a corn-crib.

House Wren. T roglodytes aedon subsp. A male, collected at
Des Moines, June 20, 1929, when compared with a series of subspecies
aedon, and parkmajii in the American Museum of Natural History ap-
peared to be intermediate. These intermediates are more common in
central and eastern Iowa than the typical parkmani, and according to
Mr. John T. Zimmer, a few of them have been collected in Nebraska.

176

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

Eastern Mockingbird. Mirnus polyglottos polyglottos. One bird
observed by A. T. Watson and K. R. Nelson one mile north of Polk
City, Polk County, June 3, 1929. Mr. and Mrs. W. A. Kinnaird of
Valley Junction reported a pair of these birds six miles south of that
city on June 4, 1929. Watson, Nelson, and I saw this pair on June 6
and found their nest, which contained two eggs. Later Mr. Kinnaird
reported that the nest had four eggs, all of which hatched. Another
pair of mockingbirds was reported by Mr. Sibley H. Crosby in north-
east Des Moines, June 7, 1929. A pair of these birds was seen by Mr.
Paul Sandahl at the City Nursery in East Des Moines, June 10, 1929.
Mrs. Stewart and I saw the male on June 20, but could not find the
female. We believed she must be on a nest, but none could be found.
Mr. Sandahl reported that they were last seen on June 26, 1929.

Willow Thrush. Hylocichla juscescens salicicola. One seen in
Des Moines, May 27, 1929. R. M. Anderson places this subspecies in
the hypothetical list of bis “Birds of Iowa”, (1907). The range given
for this bird in the A. 0. U. Check-List is the following: “Breeds in
lower Canadian and Transition zones . . . south to . . . central
Iowa; . . .” Harry C. Oberholser, in a letter to me, June 15, 1929.
says concerning the status of this bird in Iowa, “both might occur, get
specimens; salicicola probably the common form. Otto Widmann
(Birds of Missouri, 1907, p. 261), says of the two races in Missouri,
“that both forms occur is certain . . . others ( salicicola ) have been
taken in eastern as well as western Iowa . . It seems to me that
this subspecies should have been included in Anderson’s list.

Cedar Waxwing. Bombycilla cedrorum. While at the Ledges
State Park on June 10, 1929, the Custodian, Mr. Carl Lritz Henning,
informed me that a pair of Cedar Waxwings was building in a cedar
in his yard. On June 16, 1929, I noticed a pair building near the top
of a mulberry tree at my home in Des Moines. The nest was about
twenty-eight feet from the ground and some of the material used in its
construction was taken from an abandoned Robin’s nest near by. A
great deal of string and strips of bark were used, and building was
done only in the morning. In the afternoon the pair either fed on
mulberries or perched side by side close to the nest. After coming to
Des Moines to attempt a photograph of this nest, Mr. Rosene found,
upon returning to his home, that there was a waxwing’s nest within
150 feet of his own house.

Starling. Sturnus vulgaris vulgaris. A pair seen in Des Moines,
March 21, 1929, by Mr. and Mrs. Alexander W. Lee. This is tie first

Notes from Central Iowa

177

appearance of the Starling in central Iowa. ( See the Wilson Bulletin,
XLI, p. 245, 1929).

Tennessee Warbler. Vermivora peregrina. Two late records
for 1928 are of single birds observed June 4, in Crocker Woods, Des
Moines, and on June 6, Ledges State Park, south of Boone.

Orange-crowned Warbler. Vermivora celata celata. A male
collected in Des Moines, June 6, 1929. This is over three weeks later
than the previous late spring record for Polk County. Its song sounded
like a cross between the songs of the Tennessee and Pine Warblers—
a soft trill ending with an ascending note. The specimen is now in
Mr. Nelson’s collection.

Grinnell's Water-thrush. Seiurus noveboracensis notabilis. A
single bird observed at Long Pond on June 6, 1928, apparently a late
migrant, as the only typical breeding grounds of this species was sev-
eral miles away. In 1929 a pair of these birds was seen at Camp
Mitigwa, north of Woodward, June 13. As both birds were carrying
food we suspected that they had young in a nearby nest.

Mourning Warbler. Oporornis Philadelphia. A male seen at
Camp Mitigwa on June 13, 1929. There was no proof that this bird
was anything other than a late migrant.

Eastern Savannah Sparrow. Passerculus sandwichensis savanna.
A juvenal, probably out of the nest at least ten days, was observed
with one adult along the west side of Little Wall Lake on June 12,
1928.

Nelson’s Sparrow7. Ammospiza caudacuta nelsoni. One bird was
noted at Long Pond and another at a small pond two miles south on
June 12, 1928. It seemed likely that birds present at that date were
breeding but no nests were found. A single bird Hushed from the edge
of the marsh at East 14th Street and Euclid Avenue, Des Moines,
May 27, 1929.

Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California,

Berkeley, California.

THE WILSON BULLETIN

Published at Sioux City, Iowa, by the Wilson Ornithological Club.

The present editorial organization is as follows: T. C. Stephens, Editor-in-

Chief, Sioux City, Iowa; Myron H. Swenk, University of Nebraska, Lincoln,
Nebraska; Albert F. Ganier, Nashville, Tennessee; Alfred M. Bailey, Chicago
Academy of Sciences, Chicago, Illinois; R. D. Hissong, Sioux City, Iowa.

The subscription price in the United States is $1.50 a year, and 50 cents a
number; in all other countries of the International Postal Union the price is
$1.75 a year, and 60 cents a number. Subscriptions and orders for single copies
should be addressed to the Secretary, Dr. Jesse M. Shaver, Peabody College,
Nashville, Tennessee, U. S. A.

EDITORIAL

The Annual Meeting at Columbus

The next annual meeting of the Club will be held at Columbus, Ohio, on
the three days following Thanksgiving Day. The program and business sessions
will occupy Friday and Saturday, November 25-26; and on Sunday a visit will
be made to Buckeye Lake, which is an interesting inland body of water, about
thirty square miles in extent. In the vicinity of this lake 285 species of birds
have been recorded.

The sessions will be held in the splendid auditorium of the Ohio State
Museum on the Ohio State University campus. Mr. E. S. Thomas, Curator of
Natural History, will act as guide to the numerous exhibits of interest to orni-
thologists. (The Editor especially recommends that visitors be sure to see the
extensive collection of Indian effigy pipes, carved in imitation of many species
of birds). Plans are being made to have a display of paintings and photographs
by members, and those who desire to participate are invited to communicate with
the Secretary.

The large membership in Ohio and adjoining states is an assurance that the
meeting this year will be well attended, notwithstanding adverse general condi-
tions. It is expected that the total registration will not fall much below that of
other recent meetings.

There will not be another issue of the Bulletin prior to the meeting, but
the Secretary's annual letter will give details concerning the program, hotel head-
quarters, etc. The officers are now at work on the program, and we urge our
members to make an early report to the Secretary concerning any contribution to
the program. Papers of all types are desired, and especially those illustrated with
slides or movies of general interest.

In order to extend our usefulness as well as to keep up our finances we are
anxious to enlarge our membership. To this end every member is requested to
recommend to the Secretary at least one prospective member. This is the most
effective means of developing the organization, and we do not believe that our
resources are by any means yet exhausted.

Editorial

179

One of the Pleasures in bird study is the general lact that every day of
field work brings some new bit of information to the observer’s experience. The-
truth of that will be well known to every field worker. Very few would wish to
deny that experience of growth. We live in constant hope and expectation that
we will have the same experience of discovery and growth tomorrow, and the
day after, throughout all the future. This could not he so if it were possible for
us to gather all knowledge within any limited period of time. It has been the
invariable human experience in the past that individual mental development, as
well as collective human knowledge, has been gradual and cumulative. Upon the
basis of this experience we entertain a hope and prediction for the future. How
vain is, therefore, the mortal who holds himself in conceit, and looks with dis-
dain or condescension upon his fellow-worker.

Literary Contributions are so necessary to the maintenance of the Bulletin
that any thought of offering general criticism of authors’ technique may well he
questioned. However, it is with the spirit of mutual helpfulness that the Editor
ventures to make a few suggestions. No matter how experienced and skilful a
writer may he his manuscript is almost sure to require some editing to bring it
into conformity with the style of the magazine to which it is submitted. Many
authors study the style of the magazine in which they expect to publish. Doubt-
less different authors use all degrees of care in preparing a paper for publication.
It was our thought to suggest that a manuscript should not be submitted for pub-
lication until it had been revised at least three times; once for elimination and
condensation ; again for clearness. Then the second revision should be read
three times, once for syntax, once for capitalization and spelling, and once for
punctuation. Tt may now he revised to include these corrections. There is little
doubt that many scientific papers are revised a dozen times or more before publi-
cation. Then the author may typewrite it, double-spaced, on good paper (not thin,
flimsy stuff), and send the original (not the carbon copy) to the Editor.

During Mr. Ridgway’s Life he succeeded in issuing the volumes of “The
Birds of North and Middle America” about every three years on the average,
until eight volumes had been published. Mr. Ridgway had completed his work
on the ninth volume three or four years before his death; so, this work has been
allowed to remain unpublished for perhaps seven years. We hope it is not the
intention to abandon this publication entirely. The set should be completed.
There is no work so complete in the treatment of distribution and synonomy, and
it is essential for reference in these matters. In the interest of scientific con-
venience it should he carried on to completion.

180

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

GENERAL NOTES

Conducted by M. H. Swenk

A Late Date for the Chimney Swift in Indiana. — Last fall (1931) dur-
ing a warm spell, we saw a pair of Chimney Swifts ( Chaetura pelagica ) flut-
tering in the air one Sunday afternoon, and the date was November 20. That was
the latest record I have ever known these birds to be seen in this part of the
country. — Mrs. Horace P. Cook, Anderson, lnd.

Two Iowa Duck Records. — On November 15, 1928, Dr. E. M. MacEwen
shot a duck near Lone Tree, Iowa, that was identified as a cross between a
Mallard and a Pintail. The duck was sent to W. T. Hornaday, who verified the
identification. It is now on display at the University of Iowa.

In the fall of 1931 a duck was shot by a Mr. Wendell of Estherville, Iowa,
which was probably a Fulvous Tree Duck { Dendrocygna fulva) . The duck was
taken to F. P. Hopkins of Spirit Lake. While Mr. Hopkins is not an orni-
thologist he is a very careful amateur ichthyologist and understands the im-
portance of care in identifying unusual species. He said that the duck was shot
from a tree. Its legs were about twice as long as those of a teal and blue-black
in color. Its bill was short, dark and somewhat broad. The rest of the decc-ip-
t'/v”. also fitted the Fulvous Tree Duck exactly. Unfortunately the duck was not
saved. I believe that this bird should be included in future state lists as a hypo-
thetical record. — F. L. R. Roberts, Iowa City , Iowa.

Great Horned Owls Dying in the Wild from Diseases. —On February 21,
1932, in the course of some raptor studies east of Prairie du Sac, Wisconsin, a
nesting Great Horned Owl (feathers plucked from underparts) was found freshly
dead and intact beneath a favorite roost tree. It lay with ventral surface on the
ground, wings partially spread and talons about half closed. Careful examination
preceded by plucking proved that the bird was in full flesh and bore no external
injuries of any sort. Hippoboscid (blood sucking) flies off the carcass were
conspicuous and active. The most recent pellet was smaller than the usual size,
and, judging by the mucus, probably less than forty-eight hours old.

Th is owl was sent to Dr. R. G. Green, Univeristy of Minnesota bacteriologist,
who has been making a specialty of wild life diseases. He reported in a letter:
“The liver was normal in size, showed some congestion and numerous fine necrotic
areas. The spleen was greatly enlarged and thickly packed with small discrete
abscesses of varying size. All other organs appeared normal.” A captive Great
Horned Owl and a Screech Owl succumbed to inoculation with infective material.
A captive Barred Owl, likewise inoculated, seemed immune. Dr. Green told me
orally that the disease was not tularemia (to which none of his experimental
raptors have as yet shown susceptibility ) , and that the evidence indicates a virus,
possibly specific for certain owls. He will publish elsewhere the technical data
from his investigation.

Unfortunately, I did not again visit the owl territory until April 6, when the
remains of the second Great Horned Owl — the mate of the first — were discovered,
also under one of the habitually used roost trees. Only the wings and a picked
and bleached sternum could be located, so the specimen cannot be said to have
had more than limited diagnostic value. At any rate, both members of the pair
were then accounted for; both apparently dead within a short time of each other,
presumably victims of the same contagion.— Paul L. Frrington, Madison . If is.

General Notes

181

Recent Changes in South Dakota Bird Life. — Many South Dakota lakes
are rather low at this time (1931), due to the dry summer of 1930. Other lakes
are entirely dry and the effect on bird life is very noticeable. Lake Albert, in
Kingsbury County, was formerly the home of a large colony of Donble-crested
Cormorants, but at present the lake is a huge flax field. The cormorant colony
on Dry Lake, north of Lake Albert, is also gone, probably due to molestation.
The remnants of the two colonies just mentioned selected a rocky island in nearby
Lake Poinsett, and here several hundred birds are nesting. A fine colony of
Western Grebes was, however, found on Dry Lake.

Roy Lake, northeast of the Waubay Lakes, was once the site of a fair-sized
cormorant colony, but fishermen decided the birds were too fond of fish, and the
colony was shot out during 1930. The remnants of this colony has evidently
settled on Cattail Lake, near old Fort Sisseton, and has easily doubled the size
of the old colony at this place.

The fine cormorant colony on South Waubay Lake is probably the largest
colony left in the United States. This season Mr. Arthur Lundquist, of Webster,
South Dakota, and the writer found nearly 700 nests on the two islands. The
Ring-billed Gulls on the larger island seemed to be back in larger numbers, and
several hundred nesting birds were seen. The large colony of Common Terns
has, however, almost deserted this island, and less than a dozen pairs were there
nesting this year (1931).

In general the water and shore birds are decreasing in this area. Duck nests
were less numerous than usual this year. Holboell’s and Eared Grebes seemed
less numerous than in other years. Western Grebes appeared more abundant on
Rush Lake, but this was no doubt due to the fact, that this species was not nest-
ing on South Waubay Lake, or on other lakes and sloughs where it had formerly
nested. The Western Grebes chose Rush Lake for a breeding ground this year
and iL appears that most of the grebes of this region have come to the above
lake this summer.

Western Willets and Upland Plovers were not seen in the usual numbers,
but the Marbled Godwil was apparently present in about its usual numbers.
Clay-colored Sparrows were found nesting in several likely places. The Prairie
Marsh Wren and the Short-billed Marsh Wren were seen in many marshy areas,
the former being much the more common. A male Nelson’s Sparrow, in breeding
condition, was taken at Rush Lake, on June 7, 1931. — William Youngworth,
Sioux City, Iowa.

Woodcocks and Wood Ducks in Washington County, Iowa. — While
patroling on Skunk River on July 14, 1932, my spaniel flushed a Woodcock
within fifteen or twenty yards of me, and another not over that far from the first
one. They flew not over fifty yards and lit near each other. I called the dog in
because they acted as if they had young there, and backed up for fear the dog
would catch their young. It was in large elm timber on low, wet bottom ground
and with some heavy cover, near the county line between Washington and
Keokuk Counties, Iowa.

I am a great lover of the woods and of all birds, have a good dog, and get
great pleasure in walking along the creeks and rivers. However, this was the
first time in fifty-one years here that I have seen a pair of Woodcocks at that time
of the year. I can find some in October every year, on the bottom, in moist low

182

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

places, and I actually believe there are more coming through here in the fall now
than there were years ago.

There are not as many Wood Ducks hatching here as there used to be, hut
there are some remaining about the Pinoak Ponds whenever we have water to
keep the ponds full. Last fall on the Conesville marsh the week before the
twentieth of October, the open season, 1 estimated there were from 400 to 500
Wood Ducks on the upper part of the marsh, and 1 personally told all the club
members there to be careful not to shoot any of them. Only a few of the old
hunters know them by their (light any more. — E. L. Breitenbach, Washington,
Iowa.

The Swallow-tailed Kite in Pottawattamie County, Iowa. — It has now

been about two decades since the Northern Swallow-tailed Kite ( Elanoides forfi-
catus forficatus) has been reported from Iowa. Early in July of 1931 a farmer
shot one of these birds along the West Nishnabotna River, a few miles southwest
of Oakland, Pottawattamie County, Iowa, and brought it to Mr. Leo Lockhart, of
Hancock (a few miles north of Oakland), for mounting. The bird was, however,
subsequently sent to the shop of Karl Schwarz, the taxidermist at 419 South 13th
Street, Omaha, Nebraska, who mounted it. I first learned of its presence in his
shop on July 8, and some time later secured the specimen from Mr. Lockhart, and
it is now in my collection. It is a good specimen, and from its size I should
judge was a male, the measurements of the mounted bird being in millimeters as
follows: Length, 556; wing, 400; tail, 263 (unusually short); tarsus, 30; exposed
culmen, 20.5 (from feathers, 27); depth of bill at base, 13.5. — Myron H. Swenk,
Lincoln, Nebr.

An Experiment with Nesting Purple Grackles. — A great many Purple
Grackles ( Quisculus q. quiscula) nest in the neighborhood of my yard at Lexing-
ton, Virginia. While taking a set of eggs during the spring of 1928, it occurred
to me to try the experiment of changing eggs from one nest to another to see
if a Purple Grackle would hatch eggs that were not her own. I took six eggs
from a nest and replaced them with five eggs from another nest. The bird to
which I gave the five new eggs had begun, I think, to incubate her original eggs.
One factor that made me more doubtful as to whether my experiment would
succeed was that I had kept the five eggs overnight before I decided to try the
exchange. I did not, however, remove the original six eggs until I was ready to
replace them with the five new ones. The exchange was made early in the after-
noon of April 26. Later in the afternoon the bird was on the new set of eggs.
She did not lay another egg to bring the number up to that of her original set
of six. On May 7 she was still incubating normally. When I returned home on
May 12, after an absence of four days, I found that she had hatched out the
foster set. The nestlings appeared to be about three days old. The younger birds
all lived to leave the nest. 1 he adults, both male and female, were much excited
each time that I visited the nest and at times alighted near me in the small
tree, with much scolding, but the fact that they reared their young in spite of
this exchange of eggs and of my frequent visits seems to show that Purple
Grackles are not very sensitive as to nesting conditions. — J. J. Murray, Lexing-
ton, V a.

General Notes

183

Cedar Waxwings Feeding on Ash Flower Stamens. — Approximately
forty Cedar Waxwings ( Ampelis cedrorum ) have been stopping for at least the
past two days (April 11 and 12) in several rows of ash trees lining a boulevard in
the south part of Kansas City. The trees are bare of leaves but the staminate
flowers are just beginning to shed their pollen. The waxwings are gorging on
the mature stamens. They perch among the branches of the comparatively small
trees and pay little attention to passersby, whether they be on foot or in motor
cars. Occasionally they reach out for another beak full of flower stamens. Three
weeks ago waxwings were seen in the neighborhood, feeding on small rotted
apples still hanging on the trees. — A. E. Shieling, Kansas City, Mo.

A New York Ring-necked Pheasant Census. — On April 25, 1930, while
traveling from Geneva to Rochester, New York, a count was made of the number
of Ring-necked Pheasants occurring within a defined area extending parallel to
the Lehigh Railroad. On April 30, another count was made over the same terri-
tory, while traveling from Rochester back to Geneva. Conditions for observation
were excellent, since at that season of the year there were no crops or leaves
on the trees to in any way obstruct the view. The birds were very tame, seemingly,
and continued to feed and move about in the fields, very little affected by the
presence of the passing train. An attempt was made to count all birds within the
limits of one-tenth of a mile on one side of the passing train, from a window of
which these notes were recorded. A record was kept of the nature of the group-
ings of the birds, in order if possible to apprehend any dearth in the number of
breeding males as compared to the total estimated population.

Between Geneva and Rochester a total of fifty birds were counted. Of these
twenty-two were male birds. The following groupings were recorded: Eleven

males were each alone; four males were each accompanied by one hen; five males
were each accompanied by two hens; one male was accompanied by four bens;
one male was accompanied by six hens; four hens were each alone.

Between Rochester and Geneva a total of fifty-one birds were counted, of
which twenty-six were males. They were distributed in groups as follows: Thir-
teen males were each alone; four males were each accompanied by one hen; two
males were each accompanied by two hens; two males were each accompanied by
three hens; one male was accompanied by five hens; four males were fighting (two
different sets) ; two hens were each alone; three hens were in one (lock.

The total distance between Geneva and Rochester is 40.6 miles. Observations
were limited as nearly as possible to an area one-tenth of a mile wide. Thus, for
a total area of 4.06 square miles, these figures show an approximate pheasant
population of thirteen birds per square mile.

Regarding the number of males, twenty-two were counted on the first trip,
and twenty-six on the second. If twenty-four were taken as the average number,
there would be approximately six breeding males per square mile. While it is
comparatively easy to overlook an occasional female in making such a count, I
believe that the number of males counted represents a fairly accurate account of
the number existing over that area at that time. Nowhere in the state have I
seen the Ring-necked Pheasant as numerous, although there are few areas over
which it would be so easy to count the birds as in the flat agricultural region
about Rochester. — R. G. Johnson, Oneonta, N. Y.

184

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

Double and Triple Nests of the
Red-winged Blackbird. — This prairie
town has no water near except the arti-
ficial lake for the city water supply. On
the banks of this lake I find colonies of
the Red-winged Blackbird. The first of
these nests 1 find very low, and band
the young about the first ol May, but
as the season advances I find the nests
higher, several of them placed in wil-
lows or mesquite at a height of eight
or ten feet. The last banding this sea-
son (1931) was on July 12. In the
cattails I found several two-story nests
and one of three stories (see illustra-
tion). Each nest was perfect, and I
banded nestlings from the last two. —
Mrs. Jack Hagar, Corsicana, Tex.

The Chipmunk as an Enemy of Birds. — We all know that birds have
many enemies. However, I thought that I was aware of most ol them, and liking
birds on the whole better than I do their persecutors, 1 have always aided the
birds as much as possible. But I was a bit surprised on May 8, 1929, when I
was forced to catalog a new enemy of bird life, a creature that until that time
I had considered free of guilt as far as taking the life of a bird was concerned.

My patch of Cumberland raspberries is situated less than a stone’s throw
east of the house, and being properly pruned each season, the bushes afforded
several species of bramble-loving birds splendid nesting sites each spring. Some
time prior to the date mentioned, a pair of Cardinals ( Richmondena cardinalis)
had selected a clump of raspberries that suited them, and had built a nest in it.

I watched the nest closely from the beginning, knew when the first, egg was
laid, saw them through the period of incubation, and, at last, saw the nest filled
almost to overflowing with three hungry young Cardinals. They were large, so
heavy that the insecurely fastened nest tilted to one side, when the tragedy
occurred, early in the morning. 1 heard the clamor of the parent birds and
rushed down. The nest still contained one bird, another on the ground was
injured, but living, and the whereabouts of the third was shown me by the
actions of the female Cardinal. A fence with one-inch mesh surrounded the
raspberry patch, and I saw her, fluttering and crying frantically, apparently trying
to rush through the fence head foremost. She flew away when I arrived but
mother love asserted itself shortly, and she was back, hovering near me, crying
piteously as I extricated from the mesh of the fence all that remained of the life-
less young Cardinal. But I had seen the culprit! That black-striped back gave
him away as he, noting my approach, ceased struggling in the attempt to pull
a too large young Cardinal through the fence, and hurried back to his old home
in the brush pile below the path. The enemy was a Chipmunk, a fellow that I
had considered neutral, if I did not call him a friend. Nature had taught me
something more. His home was destroyed and later he went the way of many

General Notes

185

other enemies of my birds. Chipmunks have been added to the black list now.

I righted the nest of the Cardinals and replaced the injured young one, hut
it did not live. However, the parent birds did not desert the sole survivor of the
tragedy. A few mornings later they had induced him to try his wings, and I saw
the solitary youngster, shortly after sunup, sitting on a post beside the path that
leads into the hollow. — Grant Henderson, Greensburg, lnd.

The Great Blue Heron Flops on Its Prey. — Late one afternoon we sat in
an automobile south ol Lake George, New York, and had an excellent oppor-
tunity of watching the fishing movements of a Great Blue Heron ( Ardea herodias
herodias) in a small stream about sixty feet away. The heron walked very
stealthily in the water beside some reeds, and was in full view. The water was
about three inches deep there. As each foot was raised from the water the
toes hung vertically and limp; then were flattened out before touching the sur-
face in the forward step. The heron held its head quietly, except with a for-
ward swing with each step, and with the bill at an angle of about forty-five
degrees. Suddenly it seemed to drop upon its prey. In this act it bent its knees
and ankles together to bring the force of its weight into the thrust. Its action
was not entirely a neck motion, with the body revolving or tilling on the fulcrum
of the hip joint, hut was a whole dropping of the body. Its entire head was im-
mersed. When it came up it had a fish at least six inches long. It appeared to
have thrust its hill, or one blade at least, through the fish. The heron carried
the struggling fish to shallower water and appeared to stab it two or three times.
Then juggling it into the right position, it was swallowed head first, and the bird
resumed its fishing. The lump in the throat was seen to go down. A few minutes
later the Heron caught a minnow in the same manner. — Harold B. Wood, Harris-
burg, Pa.

The Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Moves Its Nest. — Much has been published
lntely in the Wilson Bulletin in regard to the nesting of the Blue-gray Gnat-
catcher ( Polioptila caerulea caerulea). On May 15, 1932, I observed the nest of
a Blue-gray Gnatcatcher in a small elm tree twenty-two feet from the ground.
The male and female were both seen. The same day, and about 200 yards from
the gnatcatcher’s nest, I found the nest of a Green Heron ( Butorides virescens
virescens ) the female being on the nest.

One week later, on May 22, 1932, I again visited this locality. The Green
Heron’s nest was gone, having been robbed and the nest thrown to the ground.
These birds then built another nest in the same tree that contained the gnat-
catcher’s nest and about twelve feet from it. While looking for the latter nest,
one of the gnatcatchers suddenly appeared and flew to the spot where the nest
originally had been. Gathering a piece of nesting material in its hill it flew away,
hut in a short time returned. The nest at this time was almost gone, only the
bottom part of it remaining.

That they do remove their nests to other situations is almost certain, as in
this case the Green Heron having built close to the gnatcatcher’s nest, made them
change their location. Another thing I have observed about these birds, is that
they generally build their nests from ten days to two weeks before laying their
eggs. This I think is due to the fact that they nest early (in this locality) and
do not deposit eggs until the trees are well leafed out. — C. K. Lloyd, Oxford, Ohio.

186

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

Some Corrections and Additions to the New A. 0. U. Check-List. —

The following are some corrections and additions to the recent (1931) fourth

edition of the A. 0. U. Check-List:

Page 25. Man-o’-war-bird. ( Fregata magnificent) . Breeds on different keys in
Monroe County in different years, and has for over ten years to my knowledge,
on Bird Key, outside of the railway trestle, in 1931.

Page 31. American Bittern ( Botaurus lentiginosus) . Breeds in Dade County,
southern Florida.

Page 67. Insular Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus extimus) . The
range as given, Florida Keys, is very inaccurate, for it breeds only sparingly on
the keys, and commonly on the mainland, as far northward as a line across the

state from Palm Beach to Fort Myers. Above that line, breeding birds are

nearer B. I. alleni than extimus.

Page 68. Swainson’s Hawk ( Buteo swainsoni) . Florida range, given as
“casual”, should be changed to “a regular migrant”.

Page 72. Marsh Hawk ( Circus hudsonius) . This bird breeds sparingly in
Dade County, southern Florida.

Page 77. Little Sparrow Hawk ( Falco sparverius paulus). True typical
paulus breeds in Florida only north to a line across the state north of Lake
Okeechobee; above that it intergrades with F. s. sparverius.

Page 101. Mexican Jacana ( Jacana spinosa gymnostoma) . The Check-List
questions the subspecific identity of C. B. Cory’s record of this bird. My father,
the late H. B. Bailey, recorded a Jacana seen on his trip, by skiff, from Kissimee
to Fort Myers, in March, 1911. (See “Birds of Florida”, page 59). Any field
identification given by him, especially of such a bird as this, can be relied upon,
for few men had his faculty for identifying birds correctly in the field, and his
notes were never questioned.

Page 114. Spotted Sandpiper ( Actitis macularia) . This species should have
been given as breeding in Florida, where I have taken the downy young. (“Birds
of Florida”, page 54).

Page 134. Franklin’s Gull (Lams pipixean). Winters from Florida Bay
and the Gulf Coast of Florida southward.

Page 151. White-crowned Pigeon ( Colurnba leucocephala) . This pigeon has
been a regular breeder on several of the smaller keys in Florida Bay for many
years, and also on main Key Largo (1930-31), it is a regular winter resident on
the mainland in Monroe County, where it comes for the hardwood native berries
and food similar to that which is to he found on the keys.

Page 152. Scaled Pigeon ( Colurnba squamosa). The two records as given
from Key West, were undoubtedly escaped caged birds brought over from Cuba
by the tobacco workers, as were several other varieties of Cuban doves.

Page 154. Ringed Turtle Dove ( Streptopelia risoria) . This dove is a com-
mon breeder also at Miami Beach and some of the islands in Biscayne Bay, and a
few breed at Miami proper, since I recorded it in the Oologist, page 91, volume
29, 1922.

Page 157. The Key West, Ruddy, and Blue-headed Quail Doves, as recorded
from Florida, were undoubtedly all escaped caged birds brought over from Cuba
by the tobacco workers living and working at Key West. I have had many of
each variety in captivity the past few years, and have secured many more for
friends, hoping to breed them before they become exterminated. The wing

General Notes

187

structure of these varieties, and their habits as well, dispel all chance of their
having migrated or been blown into Florida by a tropical storm.

Page 160. Black-billed Cuckoo ( Coccyzus erythropthalmus) . Breeds south
of the Georgia-Florida line, north of Gainesville and Lake City, where 1 have seen
young and old the first week in July.

Page 206. Eastern Phoebe ( Sayornis phoebe). Breeds south in Florida to
below Lake City, where 1 have found young in the nest in July, in the usual
manner, under bridges.

Page 223. Florida Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) . The range of this bird,
as given, is misleading, for it is not found on the peninsula of Florida below
scrub oak territory, which is Lemon City (northern part of Miami City) on the
East Coast, and the peninsula extends over a hundred miles farther south and is
commonly known as Tropical Florida.

Page 229. Black-capped Chickadee (Penthestes atricapillus atricapillus) . The
range as given (Alleghanies south to North Carolina) is erroneous. Breeding
birds taken at Mountain Lake, Giles County, Virginia (altitude 4000 feet) on
May 28, 1913, and submitted to Dr. Witmer Stone for identification, were identi-
fied as, and are, P. carolinensis carolinensis. (See “Birds of Virginia”, page 344).
Evidently this has been overlooked by Dr. Stone, or slipped his memory.

Page 251. Catbird ( Dumetella carolinensis) . Northern Florida, as given,
is not correct, for they breed southward to Fort Lauderdale, and since my “Birds
of Florida” (1925) book came out, I have found a single pair breeding as far
south as Cape Sable, Monroe County, in 1926.

Page 252. Brown Thrasher ( Toxostoma rufum) . This bird breeds spar-
ingly to Cutler, Dade County, and in one case at Cape Sable, Monroe County,
in 1926.

Page 274. Key West Vireo ( Vireo griseus maynardi) . This vireo breeds in
Dade County northward at least as far as the Tamiami Trail, resorting to the
hardwood hammocks, similar to the foliage of the keys farther south .

Page 292. Collins’s Warbler ( Dendroica discolor collinsi) . The vernacular
name given this bird was “Collins’s Warbler” not “Florida Prairie Warbler”, as
given in the Check-List.

Page 294. Kentucky Warbler ( Oporornis formosus) . Breeds in northern
and northwestern Florida, sparingly.

Page 303. Red-winged Blackbirds ( Agelaius subspp.). There is still a great
deal of work to be done with the several subspecies found in the state of Florida.
I do not agree with the ranges or races of several Florida birds, as given in the
Check-List.

Page 307. Baltimore Oriole ( Icterus galbula) . This bird breeds sparingly
in northern Florida, between Lake City and the Georgia line, where nests with
young have been noted.

Page 309. Eastern Cowbird ( Molothrus ater ater). Breeds as far south as
Cape Sable, Monroe County, where I have taken one record.

Page 326. Pine Siskin ( Spinus pinus pinus). This range as given is mis-
leading, for while I resided at San Francisco, California, 1902-05, many sets of
eggs were taken with birds by several collectors, from an area bordering San
Francisco Bay, adjacent to, and little above tidewater.

Page 339. Shannon’s Seaside Sparrow ( Ammospiza niaritinia shannoni).
This new race from the seacoast of northeast Florida changes the range as given

188

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

for A. m. macgillivraii. (Bulletin No. 7, Bailey Museum of Natural History,
August, 1931).

Page 363. Snow Bunting ( Plectruphenax nivalis). The C. B. Cory record of
this bird in Florida is of doubtful value, and should not have been used, unless
in the Florida hypothetical list. This record was gone into thoroughly by the
writer when working on the “Birds of Florida”, and after all facts were known,
it was thought best to eliminate it. — Harold H. Bailey, Miami , Florida.

The Nesting Behavior of a Pair of Mockingbirds. — The Mockingbird
( Mimus polyglottos polyglottos ) is locally an abundant migrant and fairly com-
mon summer resident, while a few males winter here. An increase in recent
years in the number of migrants would indicate a northward extension of the
species. One male individual that winters here is recognizable by his song, for
he is a master artist in his imitations of other birds. Throughout the year at
no time does he wander more than within a radius of a half mile. In the winter
he skulks shyly through the bare trees in a weird manner, and at sight of another
bird gives his warning note, which is the only one used throughout the winter.

On February 22, 1929, he commenced crooning, and this was kept up until
the first week in March when his ecstatic joy was shown by his impassioned out-
bursts of song. About this time he began to investigate nesting sites. He de-
voted most of his time inspecting a neighbor’s climbing rosebush. After the
arrival of his mate, on April 3, they both continued the search, but did not come
to a decision until the latter part of April, when they chose to place their home
very near the street, in a rosebush in my own yard.

The nest was placed three feet from the ground. They did not notice the
traffic while building, but while nesting the sitting bird flew off every time a
vehicle passed. On April 28, a dark, cloudy day, 1 noticed the pair picking up
twig ends of a last year’s locust in the yard. These twig ends were about four
inches long and were carried far back in the bill at about the middle of the
twig. They flew first to the fence about a foot from the nest, and then to the
nest, putting the twigs in place. Both seemed to be taking the same interest in
building.

When first observed the nest was fairly well started. The nest was com-
pleted by April 30 and apparently was then deserted. The outer layer was com-
posed entirely of the locust twigs, the inner layer was of small rootlets, and

between these was a thin layer of moss. This mossy layer is in every Mocking-

bird’s nest that I have ever examined in this vicinity.

But they returned on May 4. On May 5, 6, and 7 an egg was deposited each
day. The squirrels kept bothering them, and finally destroyed two of the eggs.
On May 15 the nest was deserted and on the same day another one was com-
menced in the neighbor’s climbing rose. This nest was placed seven feet from
the ground. The usual height in this vicinity is three feet.

When the female commenced incubation the male chose a walnut tree 350
feet away for a perching and singing tree. He stayed most of the time in the
tree, skulking through its branches and frequently roaming through the neighbor-
hood. When the eggs were hatched he commenced his irrepressible singing,
keeping it up most of the day and for several hours at night. The song of day

was mellowed by the heat and other noises into a fascinating silvery melody,

while in the quiet hours of the night the bold, clear notes were strikingly
intensified.

General Notes

189

The young left the nest on June 19. They were joined by the male, and for
three or four days the family stayed in the yard. They then left for a vacant
lot, where they remained for three or four weeks. Then the female abandoned
them, to return to her old nest and raise another family. The same family
routine was repeated as in the first, until the brood left on August 18. The male
again joined his family in the yard and then to the vacant lot, where they re-
mained together until migration. — Katie M. Roads, Hillsboro , Ohio.

The Re-use of Nest Material. — Mr. John B. Lewis, in the June issue of
the Wilson Bulletin, notes the disappearance of Blue-gray Gnatcatchers’ and
Ruby-throated Hummingbirds’ nests after the young had left and his observations
suggest the re-use of the material either by the original builder or another bird
of the same species. Another cause for the disappearance of such nests may be
suggested by the occurrence in two instances of an old Wood Pewee’s nest as an
interior ornament of a Red-shouldered Hawk’s nest. Description of a nest found
in Jefferson Township, Cook County, Illinois, April 16, 1893, mentions this detail,
and that of another found in Northfield Township, in the same county, April 10,
1898, also notes it. Perhaps an old lichen-covered nest attracts hawks as snake-
skins do Crested Flycatchers. Incidentally, the circumstance that I have found
onion skins and bits of waxed paper in the nests of the latter species, prompts the
thought that it is not because it is a snake-skin but because of its glitter that
the object is picked up. — Edward R. Ford, Chicago, III.

An Encounter Between a Cooper’s Hawk and a Horned Owl. — On July

7, 1931, I was visiting a juvenile Great Horned Owl that had previously been
tethered on the ground for a study of its food habits in a woodlot west of Pine
Bluff, Wisconsin. The adult owl that was taking care of the youngster appeared
at my approach, alighted in a tree near by, and started the usual hostile demon-
stration of hooting and bill snapping. As if in answer to the hoots, the cry of a
Cooper’s Hawk came from deeper in the woods, and an instant later a female
hawk dashed at the adult owl with terrific speed. Like a skilled boxer, the owl
ducked, barely evading the hawk’s talons. Several times in very short order the
owl had to dodge as the raging hawk struck from all sides.

During the first part of this performance, the owl had been nearly as much
concerned on account of my proximity to the juvenile as it had been with the
attacks of the Cooper’s Hawk. Finally, things became sufficiently hot that the
owl left the branch upon which it had perched, and launched forth in direct and
purposeful chase of the Cooper’s Hawk, which kept just ahead of her larger pur-
suer for several yards before doubling back, to wheel and strike again. I he hawk
behaved as though utterly maddened, but she never let herself get quite within
reach of the owl’s talons. Her safety was plainly dependent upon her superior
agility and precision of movement. For a brief space the action became so fast
that I could not see exactly what was happening, especially at close quarters
when it seemed that neither bird could avoid being hit. However, it is improbable
that damage was done, for not even a feather was noted to fall. The hawk soon
went her way, cackling as she flew, and the owl was free once more to center
upon me its earnest attention. The hawk gave no evidence of having seen me.

A search of a few minutes revealed the hawk’s nest 110 yards away. Two
juveniles, ready to fly, were perched on the rim. — Paul L. Errington, Ames. Iowa.

190

The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

MEMBERSHIP ROLL* * * §

MEMBERSHIP ROLL OF THE WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB

Officers, 1932

President — Jesse M. Shaver, George Peahody College for Teachers, Nashville, Tenn.
First Vice-President — Edwin L. Moseley, State Teachers College, Bowling Green,
Ohio.

Second Vice-President — Josselyn Van Tyne, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan,

Secretary — Lawrence E. Hicks, Dept, of Botany, Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio.

Treasurer — Walter M. Rosene, President, City State Bank, Ogden, Iowa.
Councillors — A. F. Ganier, 2507 Ashwood Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee; Lynds
Jones, 352 W. College Street, Oberlin, Ohio; Myron H. Swenk, University of
Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Editor of the Wilson Bulletin — T. C. Stephens, Morningside College, Sioux

City, Iowa.

Honorary Members

Ballard, Harlan Hoge, 247 South, Pittsfield, Massachusetts 1893

Burns, Frank L., Berwyn, Pennsylvania Founder

Jones, Dr. Lynds, 352 West College Street, Oberlin, Ohio Founder

Pindar, Dr. L. Otley, Versailles, Kentucky... Founder

Sherman, Miss Althea R., National, via McGregor, Iowa 1902

Strong, Dr. R. M., 5840 Stoney Island Avenue, Chicago, Illinois Founder

Widmann, Otto, 5105 Enright Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri— 1897

Life Members

Bretsch, Clarence, 2690 Broadway, Gary, Indiana 1925

Ellis, Ralph, Jr., Jericho, Long Island, New York 1926

Jones, Dr. Lynds, 352 West College Street, Oberlin, Ohio Founder

Lyon, W. I., 124 Washington Street, Waukegan, Illinois 1921

Mclllhenny, Edward Avery, Avery Island, Louisiana 1910

Sherman, Miss Althea R., National via McGregor, Iowa 1902

Taylor, Dr. A. C., University General Hospital, Madison, Wisconsin 1929

Taylor, Mrs. H. J., 900 Santa Barbara Road, Berkeley, California 1916

Tucker, Mrs. Carll Penwood, Mount Kisco, New York 1928

§Whitney, Thomas Hayes 1916

Sustaining Members

Olsen, Humphrey A., Nashville Agric. Normal Inst., Madison, Tennessee 1932

^Williams, Dan W., Jackson, Ohio 1932

Active Members

Agostini, Charles T., Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1931

Bonavich, John J., Quakake, Pennsylvania 1932

Buckalew, Herbert, 120 Marshall Street, Milford, Delaware 1931

Dolman, Miss Helen, Michigan State Normal College, Ypsilanti, Michigan 1932

Drury, Ralph, 312 Broadway Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 1932

Errington, Dr. Paul L., Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa 1932

Fisher, Clarence A , Citizens’ Building, Canton, Ohio 1932

* Because of the necessity of reducing costs we are this year publishing only

the names of members received since the last membership roll was published, in
September, 1931. If any such names have been omitted it has been due to over-
sight. All members are urged to notify the Secretary of any errors in spelling,

titles, date, or address, as published in this, or the preceding, roll. Errors in
address cost money.

§ Deceased.

Membership Roll

1S1

Handlan, John W., Oglebay Park, Wheeling, West Virginia 1032

Harrison, Roger S., 416 W. 118th Street, New York, New York 1932

Gregory, Raymond J., Princeton, Massachusetts - - —.1932

Matlcck, Nellie, 5540 Pershing Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri - 1932

Associate Members

Adams, Ur. Glenn, Pearl and Race Streets, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1932

Aldous, Clarence M., 1358 Keston Street, St. Paul, Minnesota .....1931

Allen, H. Leonard, Box 153, Rhinebeck, New York 1932

Anthony, Mrs. Effie A., Great Head, Bar Harbor, Maine 1932

Auten, Miss Mary, Ramson, Ohio.. 1931

Avera, Mrs. J. P., Cove, Texas 1932

Bacon, Brasher C., Spring Lake Wild Life Refuge, Madisonville, Kentucky 1931

Ball, John N., 522 N. Pinckney Street, Madison, Wisconsin 1932

Bartholomew, Henry A., 902 N. Michigan Avenue, Lansing, Michigan ...1932

Bayles, Edwin A., East Bonne Terre, Missouri.. 1932

Becker, Miss Louise, 5742 Page Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 1931

Becker, George B., 1074 East Main, Lansing, Michigan 1932

Brant, Irving W., % St. Louis Star, St. Louis, Missouri 1932

Brown, J. Wilcox, White Oaks, Montchanin, Delaware. 1932

Bullock, J. D., Commodore Hotel, Des Moines, Iowa 1932

Campbell, John S., Bienville, Louisiana 1932

Chapman, Floyd B., 1944 Demine Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 1932

Clay, William M., Dept. Zoology, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.. ..1932

Claycomb, Prof. G. B., Southwestern La. Inst., Lafayette , Louisiana 1931

Commons, Mrs. Frank W., 608 Chamber of Commerce, Minneapolis, Minn 1932

Conant, Roger S., Zoological Park, Toledo, Ohio 1932

Cramer, W. Stuart, 201 E. King Ave., Lancaster, Pennsylvania 1932

Crane, Francis V., South Street, Needham, Massachusetts 1932

Curl, A. Laurence, Quincy, Ohio.. 1932

Davis, Russel S., Clayton, Illinois 1932

Dean, Sylvia, Fredericktown, Ohio 1932

Dearing, Hugh P., Montemare Rametto Road, Santa Barbara, California... 1932

Deck, Raymond S., 705 Whitlock Avenue, New York, New York 1931

Dickey, Mrs. Francis W., 123 E. Milwaukee Avenue, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin. ...1931

Dykerman, Miss Helen, 5457 Page Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 1931

Eaton, Warren F., 14 Mountainside Pk. Terrace, Upper Montclair, N. J 1932

Edge, Peter, Dunster House, 143, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1931

Elder, Lavinia, 874 Rose Circle, S. W., Atlanta, Georgia 1931

Forsthoefel, Paul, 303 Fulton Street, Celina, Ohio 1932

Frothingham, Mrs. Randolph, 56 Sargent Crossway, Brookline, Mass 1932

Godfrey, W. Earl, Box 252, Wolfville, Nova Scotia 1932

Goodman, Wilfred A., 3023 Mentor, Wichita, Kansas .....1932

Gowan, Carl, 606 S. Illinois Avenue, Carbondale, Illinois 1932

Hambleton, Dr. J. C., 380 W. Eighth Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 1932

Hargrave, Lyndon L., Box 203, Flagstaff, Arizona ..1932

Harris, Mrs. W. Gray, 37 S. Lenox Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 1932

Hook, Miss Sabra J., Biology Dept., Univ. Rochester, Rochester, New York 1931

Hutchinson, Rachel, 1516 Bixby Avenue, Ardmore, Oklahoma 1931

Johnson, Mrs. Irene W., 38 Portland Place, St. Louis, Missouri.... 1931

Johnson, W. D., Byrd High School, Shreveport, Louisiana 1931

Kahoe, Walter, Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio 1932

Kemper, Miss Anna F., Route No. 3, Hermann, Missouri 1932

Kittridge, Adelaide M., Perry Apts., 210 E. Fourth Street, Davenport, Iowa.... 1932
Klies, William R., Westby, Mont 1932

192 The Wilson Bulletin — September, 1932

List, E. E., % Shurtleff College, Alton, Illinois 1931

Loughborough, J. M., Suite 1539, 101 Park Avenue, New York, New York... 1931

Marsden, Raymond Robb, 3 Webster Terrace, Hanover, New Hampshire 1932

McCormick, Robert H., 342 King Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 1932

Melzer, James P., New Hampshire 1931

Metzer, James P., Milford, New Hampshire 1931

Meyer, Dr. A. W., Coe College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 1931

Meyer, Miss Adelphia, 2117 Pierce Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee 1931

Miller, J. Paul, Box 575, Amherst, Massachusetts 1931

Million, A., 2060 Rustic Road, Dayton, Ohio 1931

Moffitt, James, 1879 Broadway, San Francisco, Calif 1931

Naeser, Chas. C., 550 N. Pearl Street, Janesville, Wis 1932

Nelson, Arnold L., U. S. Biological Survey, Washington, D. C 1932

Newcomb, Cyrenius A., Jr., 1700 Penobscot Building, Detroit, Michigan 1931

Oakes, Henry W., Peabody Teachers College, Nashville, Tennessee 1931

Palsson, William F., Halldorsstadir, Laxardal, via Husavik, Iceland 1931

Patrick, J. A. M., Yorktown, Saskatchewan, Canada 1932

Pepper, William, Jr., 110 Glenview Avenue, Wyncote, Pennsylvania 1932

Perry, Harold E., 1329 Ethel Street, Glendale, California 1932

Peterson, N. Theodore, 80 Oaklawn Avenue, Battle Creek, Michigan 1931

Pratt, D. R., McKinley High School, Canton, Ohio 1932

Price, John B., 532 Alvarado, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California 1931

Pyles, H. M , Peabody Teachers College, Nashville, Tennessee 1931

Ramey, B. A., Peabody Teachers College, Nashville, Tennessee 1931

Rayburn, Miss Fern R., % W. M. Ritter Lumber Co., Columbus, Ohio 1932

R’chardson, Hubert, 182 Rusholme Road, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 1931

Roasch, Gilbert O., Science Hall, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.... 1931

Roberts, J. Harvey, Box 376, Univ. Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 1932

Shortt, Terrance M., Royal Ontario Mus. Zool , Toronto, Ontario, Canada 1931

Smith, Herbert Allyn, 3219 Bellefontaine, Kansas City, Missouri 1932

Snow, K. C., Route No. 1, Dexter, New Mexico 1932

Spiers, J. Murray, 17 Wolfrey Avenue, Toronto 6, Ontario, Canada.. ..1931

Sperry, Charles C., U. S. Biological Survey, Denver, Colorado 1931

Spitler, Miss Maude, 1225 Grand Avenue, Dayton, Ohio .1932

Stein, Stanley F., Shakopee, Minnesota 1932

Stevenson, James, Museum Vertebrate Zool., Berkeley, California 1931

Thomas, Otho S., 205 S. Greene Street, Rock Rapids, Iowa 1932

Trautman, Milton B., 618 S. Fifth Street, Columbus, Ohio 1932

Trempe, A. D., 612 Kimball Street, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 1932

Vincent, Roch Arthur, 517 St. Lawrence Boulevard, Montreal, Quebec, Can 1931

Wagrer, Miss Esther E., 11 Eighth Avenue, Danbury, Connecticut 1932

Watkins, Allen G., Dept. Botany, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana.... 1931

Weaver, Mrs. Ralph, Sumner, Washington 1931

Wechter, William E., Hanging Gardens, Plymouth, Ohio 1932

West, Joe Young, Peabody Teachers College, Nashville, Tennessee 1931

Wheeler, H. E., Birmingham Public Library, Birmingham, Alabama 1932

Williams, Laidlow 0., 8 Greenholm, Princeton, New Jersey 1932

Wight, H. M„ School oi Forestry and Conservation, Ann Arbor, Michigan 1931

Witmer, S. W., 1406 S. Eighth Street, Goshen, Indiana 1932

Wolfram, George S., Canal Winchester, Ohio 1932

Wood, Dr. Harold B., 3016 N. Second Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.... 1932

Woods, Dr. Farris H., Lefevre Hall, Univ. Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 1931

Yeatter, R. E., 4052 N. S. Building, Ann Arbor, Michigan 1932

TO OUR CONTRIBUTORS

Our members are urged to submit articles for publication in the Bulletin.
Short items are desired for the department of General Notes, as well as longer
contributions, especially pertaining to life-history, migration, ecology, behavior,
song, economic ornithology, field equipment and methods, etc. Local faunal lists
are also desired, but they should be annotated, at least briefly, and should be
based upon sufficient study to be reasonably complete. Authors are asked to
include the common name, the scientific name (from the A. 0. U. check-list), and
annotations, and they should be arranged in this order. The annotations should
include explicit data concerning unusual species. Omit serial numbering.

The Manuscript. The manuscript, or copy, should be prepared with due regard
for literary style, correct spelling and punctuation. Use sheets of paper of good
quality and of letter size (8*4 x 11 inches) ; write on one side only, and leave
wide margins, using double spacing and a reasonably fresh, black ribbon.

The title should be carefully constructed so as to indicate most clearly the
nature of the subject matter of the contribution. Where the paper deals with a
single species it is desirable to include in the title both the common and the
scientific names, or, to include the scientific name in the introductory paragraph.
Contributors are requested to mark at the top of the first page of the manuscript
the number of words contained. This will save the editor’s time and will be
appreciated.

Manuscripts intended for publication in any particular issue should be in the
hands of the editor sixty to ninety days prior to the date of publication.

Illustrations. To reproduce well prints should have good contrast with detail.
In sending prints the author should attach to each one an adequate description
or legend.

Bibliography. The scientific value of some contributions is enhanced by an
accompanying list of works cited. Such citations should be complete, giving
author’s name, full title of the paper, both the year and volume of the periodical,
and pages, first and last.

Proof. Galley proof will be regularly submitted to authors. Page proofs will
be submitted only on request. Proof of notes and short articles will not be sub-
mitted unless requested. All proofs must be returned within four days. Expensive
changes in copy after the type has been set must be charged to the author.

Separates. The Club is unable, under present financial conditions, to furnish
reprints to authors gratis. Arrangements will be made, however, for such reprints
to be obtained at practically cost. The cost will vary somewhat with the nature
of the composition, but will depend mainly upon the number of pages. A scale of
rates is appended which will serve as a guide to the approximate printer’s costs.

If a blank page is left in the folding this may be used for a title page, which
will be set and printed at the rate indicated. If a complete cover with printed
title page is desired it may be obtained at the rate shown in the last column.
All orders for separates must accompany the returned galley proof upon blanks
provided. Orders cannot be taken after the forms have been taken down.

Copies 2 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Cover

50 $1.25 $2.00 $3.50 $4.75 $6.00 $7.75 $8.50 $9.75 $11.00 $12.25 $13.50 $2.58

100 1.50 2.25 3.75 5.00 6.25 7.50 8.75 10.00 11.25 12.50 13.75 2.75

200 2.00 2.75 4.25 5.50 6.75 8.00 9.25 10.50 11.75 13.00 14.25 3.00

300 2.75 3.50 5.00 6.25 7.50 8.75 10.00 11.25 12.50 13.75 15.00 4.00

400 3.25 4.00 5.50 6.75 8.00 9.25 10.50 11.75 13.00 14.25 15.50 5.00

500 3.75 4.50 6.00 7.25 8.50 9.75 11.00 12.25 13.58 14.75 16.00 6.00

Uepaging — 25c per pa^e extra. Title Page — $1.25.

(C

5)

“Every mill and farm is a memorial without inscrip-
tion to the birds long forgotten except in the annals of
science. Ignorance reads not, knows not God, sees in a
bird a mere bit of animated clay to be shot in gratifica-
tion of the lingering instincts of the brute and the sav-
age. . . . The great Audubon fell on his knees in the
forest where the Wood Thrush sang. The ignorant Span-
ish Catholic convert dropped his oars on the Amazon and
crossed his breast in fear, as the Bell Bird of the South
American forests sent out its bell -notes to flood the lis-
tening earth; and in fair Northland constrained the soul
that has parted with a little of its animality, to drop a
tear as the White-throated Sparrow drops the curtain of
the night with signal notes of soulful tenderness, or the
Black-cap welcomes the rising sun with a crystal note of
infinite sweetness and pathos. . . .

“To be able to read and interpret the Great Book of
Nature is worth infinitely more than to be able to read
the languages of other times and peoples. Blessed is the
man who, having got his eyes and ears open to the won-
ders of the earth and sky, walks daily amid things trans-
formed to symbols of things eternal. The leaf and
flower, the rosy fruit and golden grain, the sun-painted
plumage, the sky-inspired songs of the birds, all — all
make life worth living and heaven worth the hoping.” —
H. C. Munson, in The Warbler. Old Scries, Vol. I, No. 1,
January-February, 1903, pp. 3-4.

JAN 5 1533

Vol. XLIV DECEMBER, 1932 No. 4

r — 1

THE

A Magazine of Field Ornithology

Published by the

WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUR

at

SIOUX CITY, IOWA

Entered as Second-class Mail Matter, July 13, 1916, at the Postoffice at
Sioux City, Iowa, under Act of March 3, 1879.

CONTENTS

The Physiology of Feather Pattern By Frank R. Lillie 193-211

Studies on the Behavior of the Great Horned Owl

By Paul L. Errington 212-220

The Snowy Owl Invasion of Ohio in 1930-1931

By Lawrence E. Hicks 221-226

The Cormorants of South Dakota By Arthur Lundquist 227-230

Editorial 231-232

General Notes 233-240

Ornithological Literature 241-248

Communications 248

Index 249-256

THE WILSON BULLETIN

Published quarterly, in March, June, September, and December, as the official
organ of the Wilson Ornithological Club, at Sioux City, Iowa.

The current issue of the Wilson Bulletin is printed by the Verstegen Printing
Company, Sioux City, Iowa.

The Wilson Bulletin is sent to all members not in arrears for dues. The
subscription price is $1.50 a year, invariably in advance, in the United States.
Outside of the United States the subscription rate is $1.75. New subscriptions,
change of address, and applications for membership should be addressed to the
Secretary.

All articles and communications for publication, books and publications for
notice, and exchanges, should be addressed to the Editor.

Claims foi lost and undelivered copies of the magazine may be addressed to
the Editor.

THE WILSON ORNITHOLOGICAL CLUB

Founded December 3, 1888. Named after Alexander Wilson, the first American
ornithologist, and called the “Father of American Ornithology.”

The officers for the current year are:

President — Prof. J. M. Shaver, George Peabody College for Teachers, Nash-
ville, Tenn.

First Vice-President — Prof. E. L. Moseley, State Teachers College, Bowling
Green, Ohio.

Second Vice-President — Dr. Josselyn Van Tyne, Museum of Zoology, Ann
Arbor, Mich.

Treasurer — Mr. W. M. Rosene, City State Bank, Ogden, Iowa.

Secretary — Mr. Lawrence E. Hicks, Botany Dept., O. S. U., Columbus, Ohio.
Editor — T. C. Stephens, Morningside College, Sioux City, Iowa.

The membership dues are — Sustaining membership, $5.00; active membership,
$2.50; associate membership, $1.50 per year.

The following societies are affiliated organizations:

The Nebraska Ornithologists’ Union.

The Iowa Ornithologists’ Union.

The Kentucky Ornithological Society.

The Tennessee Ornithological Society.

THE WILSON BULLETIN

A QUARTERLY MAGAZINE OF ORNITHOLOGY
Published by the Wilson Ornithological Club

Vol. XLIV DECEMBER, 1932 No. 4

Vol. XXXIX (New Series) Whole Number 161

THE PHYSIOLOGY OF FEATHER PATTERN

BY FRANK R. LILLIE

Whitman Laboratory of Experimental Zoology

I. Introduction.

II. Plumage Areas.

III. The Pattern of the Individual Feather.

1. Experimental modifications.

a. By injections of thyroxin.

b. By injections of female hormone.

2. Gradients of growth-rate in the de-
velopment of the feather.

IV. General Discussion.

1. Transverse patterns.

2. Longitudinal patterns.

3. Concentric patlerns.

I. Introduction

In cooperation with colleagues, whose work will be discussed in
the following pages, I have been engaged during the last ten years in
studying the manifestations and control of sexual characteristics in the
Brown Leghorn fowl chiefly. The characters of the highly dimorphic
plumage have engaged our attention from the start, and the readiness
of control of plumage sex-characteristics led us to make a special study
of the mechanisms concerned. This resulted in the discovery that dif-
ferences of rate of growth of different feather tracts are highly de-
terminative for the threshold of reaction to the female sex hormone
(Juhn and Gustavson, 1930; Juhn, Faulkner, and Gustavson, 1931).
The idea then occurred to me that differences in the rates of growth of
parts of the individual feather might similarly he an important factor
in the determination of its pattern, whether sexual or not; and an ex-
tended analysis of development and growth of feathers confirmed this

194

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

theory (Lillie and Julin, 1932). It has been suggested to me that
the principles involved should be of general interest to ornithologists.

It should be stated at the start that the range of physiological
determination (by hormones, other physiological conditions of the
organism, and environment) is limited by genetic determiners, which
include, in my opinion, not only the general genetic make-up of the
organism, but also the skin mosaic factors responsible for the forma-
tion of different feather types in different tracts, as for instance in the
saddle and breast of male Leghorns or capons. Nevertheless, the
range of physiological determination of feather structure and pattern
is very considerable. The analysis of experimentally determined varia-
tions may he expected to throw some light also upon the principles
determining natural feather pattern.

In the experiments the female sex hormone and crystalline thy-
roxin were used. Injections of these produce specific effects on feath-
ers, showing wide quantitative ranges dependent on concentration.
Males or capons of the Brown Leghorn fowl were used exclusively for
the experiments. The female sex hormone was prepared by our cooper-
ating biochemist, Dr. R. G. Gustavson, from placenta or human preg-
nancy urine. It should he recalled in this connection that male hor-
mone is without noticeable effect on the plumage of this breed of fowl,
and that the plumage of the capon or poularde is the same as the male
in all major aspects. The effect of the female hormone is to induce
the female form, structure and pattern, specific for each feather tract,
in all regenerating feathers, so long as its concentration is above the
threshold of reaction. Thyroxin, “in physiological doses ’, produces
definite pattern effects, more especially in the “lacy” feathers of the
saddle, back, and neck.

These hormones are administered by subcutaneous injections.
There is, therefore, always a period of absorption during which the
concentration of the substance is rising in the blood to a maximum,
dependent on the dose, and a period of excretion during which the
concentration of the substance in the blood is sinking. An “intensity
curve' can be used to picture these conditions (see Fig. 52). If the
maximum is above the “threshold of reaction ”, a definite effect is
produced, the quantity of which is dependent on the duration of
threshold-concentration. The effect begins to manifest itself after a
variable latent period, if concentration in the blood is above the mini-
mum for reaction (threshold); and increases as concentration rises to
the maximum, then decreasing again to disappearance. The result of

The Physiology of Feather Pattern

195

this is to establish a symmetrical mark in the vane of the feather. Ac-
curately measured amounts of hormone were always used.

It is obvious that by suitably repeated injections the level of con-
centration of hormone in the blood may be kept constant, or caused
to fluctuate up or down as desired. A great variety of patterns may
thus be produced.

For the interpretation of the results knowledge of the mechanics
of development of the feather is necessary. As this was substantially
unknown, a detailed study of the development of the feather was neces-
sary (Lillie and Juhn, 1932).

In all of the studies summarized here regenerating feathers of
males or capons were used. Feathers regenerate promptly at any sea-
son of the year at constant rates. In order to obtain any desired stage
for study of hormone effects, definite feathers are plucked at known
periods of time before beginning any experiment, and preserved for
comparison with the experimental regenerating feathers. The results
can thus be compared with the predecessor feather, from the same
follicle if desired. The record is completed after regeneration by pre-
serving the experimental feathers also.

We may divide our review into two parts, the first dealing with
plumage areas, the second with the individual feathers.

II. Plumage Areas

We shall discuss this subject briefly, and only with reference to
areal gynandromorphism ; hut it deserves attention because the prin-
ciple of relationship between rate of growth and threshold of reaction
was first discovered here. Domm (1927) observed that in the reversion
from male type plumage, which follows sinistral ovariotomy, to female
type, which develops more or less completely at a later time, feathers
of the back and saddle may he first affected; however, no special at-
tention was given to this phenomenon. Juhn and Gustavson (1930)
found in their experiments of injection of female hormone into capons,
that, when a series of daily injections was interrupted for a day, the
regenerating breast feathers recorded the interruption by temporary
reversion to male type, while the regenerating saddle feathers remained
pure female in type. They interpreted this to mean that excretion of the
female hormone during the interruption had reduced the concentra-
tion in the blood below the threshold of reaction for the breast
feathers, hut not below the threshold for the saddle feathers; in other
words, that the breast feathers had a higher threshold of reaction than
the saddle feathers. They found also that it was possible to induce

196

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

Fig. 38. Rate of growth of feathers in length in the male Brown Leghorn. The four curves
represent the average daily increase in length of twenty feathers in each of four regions from the
twelfth to the forty-ninth days of regeneration. P. Br. is for postrior breast region; A. Br.. anterior
breast: S., saddle: B., back; abscissae, in days; ordinates, in millimeters. From Juhn, Faulkner
and Gustavson, 1931.

The Physiology of Feather Pattern

197

lien-feathering in the saddle with a low concentration of female hor-
mone in the blood, that did not affect the breast feathers at all; and
thus confirmed the conclusion. They also noted that breast feathers
grow at a much more rapid rate than saddle feathers and suggested a
causal relationship between rate of growth and threshold of reaction.

Juhn, Faulkner, and Gustavson (1931) then made an extended
study of this subject. They studied average daily rates of growth in
the posterior part of the breast, the anterior part of the breast, in the
back, and in the saddle. The results are shown in the accompanying
graph (Fig. 38). By a long series of experiments they then deter-
mined that there is a direct relationship between the growth rates of
the male feathers and the concentration of female hormone in the
blood required to change the type of the regenerating feather from
male to female. The relationship is, in fact, roughly proportional to
the linear growth rates recorded, concentrations of about the propor-
tions of 3:4:6 being required for female modification in the saddle,
anterior breast, and posterior breast, respectively. These differences
are sufficient, in view of the “all-or-none” character of the reactions,
to bring about areal gynandromorphism of plumage. They also found
an antero-posterior gradient of growth in the plumage of the breast,
and medio-dorsal transverse gradients in other feather tracts, as well
as in the breast, that were reflected in the results of various experi-
ments.

These results were applied by the writer to the explanation of
bilateral gynandromorphism. which has been described in ten distinct
cases reported in the literature (Lillie, 1931). He found in four of
the cases that a decided hypertrophy of the side bearing the male
plumage had been figured or described by the authors; in two of the
cases this happened to be the right side and in two it was the left
side. In the other cases the conditions of symmetry of the bird’s body
had not been considered. In all cases, in which the internal anatomy
was described, there was evidence of ovarian deficiency, and thus pre-
sumably of an abnormally low supply of female hormone. In the
more numerous cases of lateral hemihypertrophy known in human sub-
jects there is often, at least, an excessive growth rate of epidermal
structures on the hypertrophied side. If we assume that this is the
case also for feathers, the principle of relationship between growth
rate and threshold of reaction would necessarily determine, in cases
of ovarian deficiency of a certain degree, that the more rapidly grow-
ing side would produce male feathers and the more slowly growing
side female feathers. It is at least certain that the condition can he

198

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

explained in principle on the basis of the relationships experimentally
determined between growth rates and hormone threshold.

III. The Pattern of the Individual Feather

Although feather patterns are almost infinitely diversified, there
are undoubtedly certain fundamental physiological principles that
underlie all. The physiological analysis to be presented is based upon
experiments with one breed of fowl; nevertheless the fundamental fac-
tors are present here as they would be in any other case; and it would
probably be possible to reach a common agreement as to what they are.
Assuming this, it will be seen that the analysis is probably significant
for the interpretation of feather pattern in general. In each case there
are certain genetic and mosaic factors pertaining to species, race, and
feather tract that are special; for the purpose of physiological analysis
these are taken for granted.

Like the entire organism the feather is a bilateral structure with
a more or less pronounced tendency to asymmetry both in form and
pattern. All of its variations and modifications are to be referred to
its axis (the rhachis), to its apical and basal ends, to its free margin,
and to its outer and inner surfaces. The modifications to be considered
are restricted to the vane proper. The structural elements concerned
are the rhachis, the barbs and barbules, and the pigment.

We shall deal first with experimental modifications of pattern;
and afterwards with the development of the feather as a means of
interpretation.

1. Experimental modifications.

a. By injections oj thyroxin.

The feathers in which the effects of thyroxin are most clearly
marked belong to the saddle, back, and neck-hackle tracts of the male
or capon. These feathers agree in being long, acuminate, and lacy,
i. e., with barbules confined to the basal region of the barbs, to an
extent which increases regularly from near the apex to the base of
the vane (Fig. 39).

In preparation for the experiment feathers are plucked previously,
so that regenerating feathers of known age are present. Accurately
measured subcutaneous injections of Squibb’s crystalline thyroxin are
then administered. Figrues 42-46 record the effects of single injec-
tions of increasing amounts of thyroxin in saddle feathers of five dif-
ferent birds; the figures are photographs of regenerating feathers
plucked several weeks after the injection. The weakest injection
(0.5 mg.) is recorded as a narrow spindle-shaped pigmented area

The Physiology of Feather Pattern

199

centered on the rhachis; the next (1 mg.) produces a similar but
broader mark with its widest point above the center; in the succeed-
ing cases (1.5, 5.0, and 10 mg.) the mark becomes progressively wider
until it reaches the margin. The form of the mark records the ab-
sorption and excretion of the thyroxin; its modifications through the
series are due, so far as width is concerned, to increasing lateral ex-
tension with increase in dose, and, so far as its form is concerned, to
more rapid absorption than excretion with rising doses. The mark is
caused by the extension of barbule formation farther from the rhachis
than normal, and by the formation of large active melanophores wher-
ever barbules appear. It will be noticed also that the feather becomes
shorter and broader as a whole with increasing dosage, though even
the highest dosage employed is not sufficient to induce premature
molting, as excessive doses will do.

The important thing to notice, however, is that there is a decreas-
ing susceptibility to thyroxin in each barb from its base to apex. In
other words, the threshold of reaction to thyroxin forms an ascending
gradient along each barb. The study of the development of the feather
shows conclusively that all levels of forming barbs are present simul-
taneously at each stage of regeneration, so that the failure of more
apical levels to show thyroxin effects with the lower doses can he due
to nothing else hut a difference in susceptibility.

Interesting patterns can be produced by injections of thyroxin at
suitably spaced intervals. Two examples are shown in Figures 40 and
41 in the case of neck hackle feathers. Fig. 39 is a normal control;
the pattern in Fig. 40 was produced by injection of 1 mg. thyroxin
every seventh day during regeneration, and in Fig. 41 by injection of
1.5 mg. every sixth day. Variations of amount and interval produce
yet other variations on the theme.

b. By injections oj female hormone.

The female hormone, prepared from sources previously men-
tioned, affects all kinds of feathers that are sexually dimorphic, caus-
ing an abrupt change from male to female type during the period that
it is effective. Its action thus differs from the action of thyroxin not
only in the number of kinds of feathers affected, but also radically in
type of reaction. The changes produced by thyroxin are never of a
sexual nature; those produced by the female hormone are always of
this nature. However, as only a few factors are concerned (general
form of the feather, presence or absence of barbules, presence or ab-
sence of cbromatophores, and the color and arrangement of the pigment
produced) superficial resemblances between the effects of thyroxin and
of female hormone do appear, especially in the lacy feathers.

200

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

Fig. 39. (Left). Neck hackle feather of male Brown Leghorn; normal control. From Lillie
and John. 1932.

Fig. 40. (Center). A neck hackle feather from a male Brown Leghorn that had received 1 mg.
of thyroxin by subcutaneous injection every seventh day during the growth of this feather. From
Lillie and Juhn, 1932.

Fig. 41. (Right). Same type of feather as in Kig. 40 from a bird receiving 1.5 mg. of thyroxin
every sixth day during the growth of this feather. From Lillie and Juhn, 1932.

Figs. 42-43-44. Tips of saddle feathers from Brown Leghorn males recording increasing single
doses of thyroxin. Fig. 42 (left), 0.5 mg. Fig. 43 (center), 1 mg. Fig. 44 (left), 1.5 mg. (See
also Figs. 45 and 46). From Lillie and Juhn, 1932.

The Physiology of Feather Pattern

201

Figs. 45-46. Tips of saddle feathers from Brown Leghorn males recording increasing single doses
of thyroxin (continuation of figures 42-44). Fig. 45 (left), 5 mg. Fig. 46 (right), 10 tng. From
Lillie and John. 1932.

Figs. 47-48. Left group. The formation of female bars on a male background by injection of

female hormone on three successive days during growth (500 rat units injected each day). Fig.

47 (left) from right anterior breast. Fig. 48 from left anterior breast. From Lillie and John. 1932.

Figs. 49-50. Bight group. The formation of male bars on a female background by omitting

every seventh day of an otherwise daily injection of female hormone during the entire growth of the
vane (60 rat units daily for twenty-seven days). From John and Gustnvson. 1930.

202

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

In the case of the feathers of the saddle, back, and neck, the pat-
terns produced by single or repeated doses of female hormone bring
out the same principle of a gradient of thresholds along the axis of
each barb in a manner similar to thyroxin (see figures in Juhn, Faulk-
ner, and Gustavson, 1931). There is no need, therefore, to give any
details of these experiments.

The special properties of the breast feathers bring out certain
consequences more clearly. Only one change is concerned, viz., in the
color, from the black of the male to the salmon-colored, or orange, of
the female. Breast feathers in general have the highest threshold for
female hormone of all contour feathers; and in the breast itself the
posterior feathers have a higher threshold than the anterior feathers.
The bases of the barbs in any given feather have a relatively low
threshold, and the threshold of reaction rises towards the apex. In-
creasing concentrations of hormone record marks extending from the
rhachis towards the margin of the vane.

However, another factor enters into the realization of the female
marking produced. This is the principle of reaction rate. The margin
of the vane (apical sections of barbs) has a much more rapid reaction
rate than the axial part. This operates in two ways: first by reducing
the period of time (latent period) after attainment of threshold-con-
centration in the blood before onset of reaction, and second by increas-
ing quantity of reaction occurring in a given time. Thus, female re-
action may occur within 24 hours after a sufficient dose, in the margin,
whereas from 48 to 72 hours are required in intermediate and axial
portions of the vane with any dosage above threshold requirements.
The consequence of difference of latent period is that a single dose
may record a mark at the margin of the vane alone if it is heavy

enough, and if it can be excreted before 48 to 72 hours after injection,

a time which covers the latent periods of the remainder of the vane.

The principal of reaction rate is of equal importance with the
principle of gradient of threshold in determining the form of a physio-
logically induced pattern.

By virtue of the two principles of threshold and rate of reaction,

transverse bars of female color may be produced in breast feathers by

suitable injections of female hormone for two or three days, because
the margin of the feather, although having a more rapid rate, records
the effect for a shorter period of time owing to its higher threshold
than the axial part. Differences in rate and threshold may thus balance
one another, producing equal effects all the way across the vane (Fig-
ures 47 and 48).

The Physiology of Feather Pattern

203

Female bars may thus be produced on a male background by injec-
tions for short periods of time; or male bars may be produced on a
female background by running a continuous series of injections during
the entire growth of the feather, except for stated interruptions, during
which the hormone is excreted to below the threshold of the female
reaction (Figures 49 and 50).

The patterns that we have hitherto considered are transverse to
the axis of the feather in their general arrangement. But it is obvious,
according to the same principles, that if one side of the vane of any
feathers should have a higher threshold than the other, a correspond-
ingly intermediate dosage of female hormone would affect only the
side with the lower threshold, and thus a longitudinally gynandro-
morph feather would be formed such as have been described by Pezard,
Sand, and Caridroit (1926), by Bond (1913), and which has been
realized in our own experiments (Lillie and Juhn (1932).

2. Gradients of growth-rate in the development of the feather.

If the same principle of relationship between levels of threshold
and rate of growth that we found to obtain between feather tracts
should also apply to the individual feather, then we could transpose
our experimentally determined gradients of threshold into gradients
of growth rate. This was the consideration that induced us to study
anew the development of the individual feather (Lillie and Juhn,
1932). For all the details I must refer to the original paper; the
conclusions alone can be stated here.

The feather forms form a complete ring of cells established as a
thickening of the epidermal layer of the feather papilla at its base,
immediately bounding the umbilicus. The original embryonic form
of the feather is thus a ring. The rhachis arises by concrescence of
the two ring halves, accompanied by continuous growth of the ring,
or collar as we shall call it; the point of concrescence establishes the
dorsal side of the ring, the point opposite being the mid-ventral line.
The rhachis is thus composed of two lateral halves fused together. It
continues to grow in length so long as the collar maintains its activity.
The halves of the collar are continually flowing from the mid-ventral
line in opposite directions into the rhachis, the energy for the motion
being furnished by very active cell-division and growth. The de-
velopment of the rhachis is thus from apex to base, as has long been
known.

The barbs arise as outgrowths of this ring parallel to one another,
perpendicular to the ring, and closely applied to the surface of the
pulp. Each arises next to the mid-ventral line, and its attachment to

204

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

Fig. 51. Split preparation of a feather germ twelve days after beginning regeneration from the
breast of a Brown Leghorn capon. The wall of the conical feather germ was split along the ventral
side and spread out flat on a microscope slide after removing the pulp. The rhachis is in the
center of the photograph. The youngest barbs are at the margins. The unpigmented base is the
collar, bounded by the umbilicus below. From Lillie and Juhn, 1932.

Fig. 52. Half vane: intermittent hormone action. Curve of intensity. Effect of female hormone
on the breast feather of the Brown Leghorn capon according to a particular dosage. Such a curve
of intensity will result in the formation of an even bar from center to margin of the vane (c/. Figs.
47-48). Other dosages will produce yet other curves of intensity, resulting in different patterns.
The ruled areas indicate duration of reaction — in the present case deposition of pigment of the
female type — in the parts of the vane concerned. The ordinates represent the thresholds of reaction
of the parts of the vane from axis to margin, and the abscissae represent time in hours. See dis-
cussion in text, page 208.

The Physiology of Feather Pattern

205

Fig. 53. Half vane; constant hormone action. The hormone action is supposed to maintain a
constant level of intensity corresponding to Threshold A or Threshold B, or Threshold C. The
reaction is represented for Threshold A only, by the ruled area. Rate of growth is plotted as
ordinates against position in the vane from margin to center. The intersection of threshold, which
is directly proportional to rate of growth, with the curve of gradient of growth rates gives the
position in the vane to which the reaction extends from the center (zzzrhachis) .

Aargtn

Intermediate

C enter

(Chach\.s)

Irig. 54. Half vane: constant hormone action. The curve of growth rates represented here is
entirely theoretical, and is postulated to explain longitudinal stripes of intermediate position in
the vane. See text, page 210. “Center" — rhachis.

206

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

the collar is fixed. As it grows in length it is carried along one side
or the other of the two halves of the collar by the flowing movements
concerned in the formation of the rhachis until it reaches the point of
concrescence on one or the other side of the definitive rhachis, when
its growth is fully completed. The time required for transfer from
mid-ventral to mid-dorsal line and completion of growth is about ten
days in the case of barbs from the middle of the vane of the breast
feather. The apical region of the barb is formed first and adjacent re-
gions, to base, in succession; the growth is apico-basal.

There are thus two time-gradients in the feather; from apex to
base along the rhachis, and from margin to center along the barbs.

The characters of each barb are finally determined for all the
elements that enter into its composition within a very narrow zone
adjacent to the collar, the zone of determination. It is within this
zone that all hormone effects are registered: above it development can-
not be altered; below it the cells are still purely embryonic. It will
be seen, on reflection (c/. Fig. 51), that the zone of determination,
from the dorsal to the ventral surface of the feather germ, intersects
all barb levels. Thus in any given experiment all levels of barbs are
accessible to the hormone.

The growth-rate of the rhachis is approximately uniform, during
the formation of the vane at least. This is clearly indicated by the
curves in Fig. 38. The slight decrement shown after about thirty days
for the feathers of the breast indicates the transition from the vane
to the fluffy part of the feather. Certain slight pattern changes along
the axis of saddle feathers have suggested, however, that there may be
a slight decrement of growth-rate from apex to base not detected by
the somewhat rough measurements. The outstanding fact, however, is
the approximate uniformity of growth-rate along the axis of the
feather.

The rate of growth of the barbs, on the other hand, decreases
very greatly from apex to base along a well-defined gradient of growth
(c). Fig. 53). The determination of this principle was based upon
the possibility of establishing a base line just above the collar through-
out its entire extent by suitable hormone injections (Lillie and Juhn,
1932), which make a colored band. In the course of the subsequent
growth this base line is moved unequally upward along the axis of
feather germ. The inequality of movement registers the unequal rates
of growth of successive levels of the barbs, which can he represented
in a curve of rate of growth, as in Fig. 53.

The Physiology of Feather Pattern

207

The form of the curve has been estimated as accurately as pos-
sible from the data at our disposal for the breast feather. It is not,
however, to be regarded as mathematically exact. The indication con-
veyed by the curve that the lateral half of the vane may he divided
roughly into three longitudinal zones — an axial zone with slowest
growth rate, an intermediate with slightly higher growth rate, and a
marginal with greatly increased growth-rate — is of significance. In
the case of the saddle feather of the capon there are indications that
the form of the curve differs in some details, though the great differ-
ence in rate between the margin and the remainder of the vane obtains
here also. The indications are that curves of growth-rate of the barbs
differ typically between rounded and acuminate contour feathers.

The experiments definitely prove that there is a close agreement
between threshold of reaction and growth-rate along the axis of barbs.
The various patterns formed by injections of hormones are fully ex-
plained as to their form by the gradients of growth-rate. The finer
composition of the patterns, however, depends upon other inherited
capacities and potencies of the particular feather concerned.

IV. General Discussion

It is reasonable to suppose that the principle of a gradient of
growth rates along the axes of the barbs during the development is a
general one. It goes far towards explaining the more general features
of feather pattern, if we are further allowed to assume that genes
operate in the developing feather in manners similar to hormones. A
single determining factor, such as a hormone or gene, may produce
great variety of results (patterns) depending on curve of intensity and
periodic activity.

No pattern is exactly symmetrical; for feathers, like other struc-
tures exhibiting bilateral symmetry, always possess an underlying
asymmetry, more or less pronounced. There exists every grade of
departure from bilateral symmetry in the feathers of fowl down to
quite extreme asymmetry. The grade of asymmetry bears certain defi-
nite relations to the main axes of the entire body, or the wings, as will
he more precisely defined in a paper to he published later. Sym-
metrical patterns therefore grade into asymmetrical patterns by im-
perceptible degrees.

It should also he noted that, as the two sides of the vane develop
independently of one another, any pattern of the entire vane depends
for its symmetry on simultaneous and equal processes in the two halves
of the collar. Any disturbance of the processes that affects the two

208

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

sides unequally will result in a certain amount of asymmetry. Thus
it is probably very seldom that the two halves of a transverse bar fit
one another exactly on the rhachis. That such fitting is, however,
usually so close is a revelation of precision in the developmental
process.

As a symmetrical pattern is thus composed of two equal halves,
it is sufficient to consider one side of the vane.

For descriptive purposes patterns may be divided into transverse,
longitudinal, and concentric.

1. Transverse patterns.

These are due to intermittent factors operating during the de-
velopment of the feather.

The most complete form of the transverse pattern is the bar. We
have already seen how, with intermittent action of hormone, the fac-
tors of threshold and rate of reaction may be so equalized as to pro-
duce a bar of even width across the vane. This depends, as we have
already seen, on a rise and fall of hormone concentration of such a
kind that its highest point is above the threshold requirements of all
transverse levels, and its beginning and end below all thresholds.

The matter can be presented in diagrammatic form as follows
(Fig. 52) : The ordinates represent threshold of reaction, and the

abscissae time in hours. The rise and fall of hormone action is plotted
as a curve derived from the general results of numerous experiments
and according to dosage of female hormone described in a previous
paper (Lillie and Juhn, 1952). This curve intersects all threshold
levels twice — in its ascending and in its descending limb. Reaction
begins in the margin, owing to its rapid rate, at about 24 hours; it
ceases at about 46 hours, owing to excretion of hormone shown in the
descending curve. Reaction does not begin in the intermediate por-
tion of the vane until about 40 hours, owing to its slower rate of
growth; it lasts until about 70 hours, when the curve falls below its
threshold. In the axial portion of the vane reaction does not begin
until about 56 hours owing to a yet slower rate, and it lasts until 90
hours, or more, when the curve falls below its threshold also. Thus,
an even bar of reaction is recorded all across the vane, because the
decreasing time of action from axis to margin is compensated by in-
crement of growth-rate. The threshold levels are, of course, not
sharply divided in three as the exigencies of the diagram demand, but
(low into one another as indicated in the curve (Fig. 53).

The Physiology of Feather Pattern

209

If the curve of hormone action does not rise to the threshold of
the marginal portion of the vane, axial patterns form, of a width
dependent on the height of the hormone curve, as in the case of
thyroxin patterns, in the saddle and neck feathers (Figs. 40-46). The
fo rm varies with the relations between the ascending (absorption) and
descending (excretion) limbs of the curve. If the descending limb
of a curve exceeding the threshold level of the margin should be very
steep, and fall below the axial threshold without intersecting the re-
action period of the axial portion of the vane a marginal mark would
be made stopping short of the axis. In the case of hormone action
this means very rapid excretion. Theoretically, the descending limb
might intersect the reaction zone of both marginal and axial portions,
missing the intermediate reaction zone entirely. This has been realized
in our experiments (Lillie and Jubn, 1932). Theoretically, also, the
descending limb might intersect only the beginnings of the marginal,
intermediate, and axial zones, leaving three spots in a transverse line
across each side of the vane. In all of these cases the patterns are
modifications of the bar.

A special form of transverse pattern is confined to the tip of the
feather, as in so-called spangled breeds of fowl. Dr. Juhn and the
writer have pointed out that the developmental history of the tip of
the feather differs slightly from the remainder and have suggested
that this may be a basis for tip patterns (Lillie and Jubn, 1932, pp.
135-136, 138-139).

We have dealt with hormones as intermittent factors determining
transverse patterns by their operation upon the form of development
characteristic of the feather germ. Their operation is restricted by the
processes of absorption and excretion, and the time factors involved.
In the barred breeds of fowl we have a genetic determining factor.
One of my students, Dr. G. Montalenti of the University of Rome, has
studied this pattern and found that its development follows the same
course as that of bars determined by hormones. The only difference
is the greater precision and more rapid control. It is obvious from
his study that the gene in question exhibits rhythmic activity according
to a curve of intensity, with ascending and descending limbs, and that
the even width of the bar is due to a gradient of threshold of reaction
combined with reaction rates precisely similar to those determined by
us for the Brown Leghorn. This paper will be published shortly.

210

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

Inherited patterns of the individual feather may thus depend on
the same principles of growth and development as physiologically in-
duced patterns.

2. Longitudinal patterns, unlike transverse patterns, which are due
to factors operating intermittently, are dependent on factors acting
constantly throughout the development of the feather. If a physio-
logical factor, such as a hormone, be of constant low intensity, it will
record a longitudinal stripe next to the rhachis (Fig. 53, Threshold A) ;
if it be of slightly greater intensity, but still below the threshold of
the margin, it will record a wider stripe leaving an unmodified margin
(Fig. 53, Threshold B) ; if its intensity throughout be above the thresh-
old of the margin also, the entire vane will be affected (Fig. 53,
Threshold C) .

Constant factors can thus record a positive (axial) and a nega-
tive (marginal) stripe side by side, but cannot record two or more
positive stripes, so long as the gradient of growth-rates is a descending
curve from margin to rhachis. If, however, the gradient should de-
scend for a short distance, then ascend again, before making its final
descent to the margin, a constantly acting factor of proper intensity
would record two positive stripes separated by a negative stripe and
followed by a marginal negative stripe (Fig. 54). Such a gradient of
growth rates is purely imaginary, though it is conceivable that it may
be found to exist in feathers of certain patterns. Its interest is in help-
ing to show the range of control of pattern theoretically possible on
the principle of relationship between rate of growth and threshold of
reaction. In this connection it may further be noticed that with such
a gradient of growth rate and a factor acting intermittently, such as the
barring factor, at a certain grade of intensity, spots would be produced,
arranged in both transverse and longitudinal rows, as in the guinea
fowl.

3. Concentric patterns may also he derived theoretically from the
principles already laid down. In the case of the thyroxin mark, for
instance, the pattern is not simple, but is composed of three effects:
the first to appear in point of time is a more or less pronounced
blanching of pigment freshly deposited; shortly after, the formation of
barbules is stimulated; then the deposition of melanin pigment oc-
curs. Thus, there are three serial effects. When the mark fails to
reach the margin, the three zones thus created are concentric. They

The Physiology of Feather Pattern

211

occur, as a matter of fact, in Figures 43 to 45; but, as they are not
sharply contrasted, it requires careful examination of the actual speci-
men to see them ( cf . Lillie and Julm, 1932). The concentric pattern
thus depends for its origin on differences of threshold of the elements
composing the mark under conditions of a suitable intensity curve.

The principles that we have stated reveal only a small part of
the mechanism that nature uses in the production of certain qualities
that we have termed pattern in the constitution of the individual
feather; they enable us to understand certain abnormalities such as
gynandromorphism whether in the individual feather or in the entire
plumage; they may he useful in experimental modification or control
of some plumage characteristics; they also have broader biological
applications. The experiments show, I think, that the plumage of
birds is a wonderful material for experimental analysis, and I hope
they may enlist the interest of ornithologists to extend them to other
forms. Certainly we have here a very little explored and, in all
probability, a very fertile field for experimental research.

REFERENCES

Rond, C. J., 1913. On a Case of Unilateral Development of Secondary Male
Characters in a Pheasant. Journ. of Genet. 3, 205.

Domrn, L. V., 1927. New Experiments on Ovariotomy and the Problem of Sex
Inversion in the Fowl. Journ. Exp. Zool. 48, 31-173.

John, Mary and R. G. Gustavson, 1930. The Production of Female Genital Sub-
sidiary Characters and Plumage Sex Characters by Injection of Human Pla-
cental Hormone in Fowls. Journ. Exp. Zool., 56, 31-61.

Juhn, Mary, Gwendoline H. Faulkner, and R. G. Gustavson, 1931. The Correla-
tion of Rates of Growth and Hormone Threshold in the Feathers of Fowls.

Journ. Exp. Zool. 58, 69-111.

Juhn, Mary and B. O. Barnes, 1931. The Feather Germ as Indicator for Thyroid
Preparations. Am. Journ. of Physiol. 98, 463-466.

Lillie, Frank R., 1931. Bilateral Gynandromorphism and Lateral Hemihyper-
trophy in Birds. Science, 74, 387-390.

Lillie, Frank R. and Mary Juhn, 1932. The Physiology of Development of
Feathers. I. Growth-Rate and Pattern in the Individual Feather. Physio-
logical Zoology, 5, 124-184. 8 plates.

Pezard, A., K. Sand, and F. Caridroit, 1926. La bipartition longitudinale de la
plume. Faits nouveaux concernant le gynandromorphisme elementaire. Comp,
rend. Soc. de Biol., Paris, 94, 1074.

Department of Zoology, University of Chicago,

Chicago, III.

212

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

STUDIES ON THE BEHAVIOR OF THE GREAT HORNED OWL

BY PAUL L. ERRINGTON

This paper is written on the basis of observations and experi-
ments made during three years (1929-1932) of wild life study in
south-central Wisconsin, in which the Great Horned Owl, Bubo virgini-
anus, was given rather special attention. It should be admitted, how-
ever, that data on behavior were acquired incidentally, the primary
purpose of the work being food habits research.

Let us begin with the nestling owlet. My own data have to do
with twenty-nine Wisconsin horned owl nests, twelve of which were
visited regularly. Of juveniles from the latter, ten were kept tethered
to prolong the food habits studies (see Errington, Paul L., Technique
of raptor food habits study. The Condor , Vol. XXXIV, March-April,
1932, pp. 75-86) some months past the time when they would have
flown. In addition, work was done with six captive juveniles, includ-
ing four birds hand raised from more or less early stages.

The first two weeks in the young horned owl’s life have a singu-
larly profound effect upon its future disposition. Recently hatched
owlets accustomed to no source of food other than their human at-
tendants came to recognize them somewhat as they would their own
parents, even displaying what appeared a great deal like true affection.
On the other hand, an owlet reared by its parents through approxi-
mately one-fourth of its growth never did really tame, though it tol-
erated discreet handling. Two juveniles captured shortly before they
could fly remained untamable; the nearest they ever came to a com-
promise with the enemy was to approach for food when forced by
hunger — and then only with the most obvious of misgivings.

Hand reared juveniles fed only dead prey were at the age of sev-
eral months still very helpless, to all appearances quite devoid of
active killing instinct. Upon the release of live English Sparrows into
the cage of one such owl, it regarded the sparrows with evident curi-
osity and eventually made a series of clumsy, futile hops in their
direction. Handed a live sparrow, the owl reached out and took it,
held it gently in its talons while looking it over, and finally let it si i p
away, uninjured. The raptor then came to me and started tugging at
my finger for something to eat. Ultimately this bird learned to kill
and eat sparrows left in tbe cage overnight, but not until many months
old and in full adult plumage could it be taught to kill larger prey.
Parallel experiences were had with another Horned Owl and with a
Barred Owl similarly raised.

Behavior of the Great Horned Owl

213

The owlet taken when about a quarter grown was best for ex-
perimental purposes. It was neither so tame as to he a spoiled pet
nor so wild as to react unnaturally in captivity. It would permit of
no familiarities hut was not hostile. It was merely “its own owl”,
and matters progressed smoothly as long as the inviolability of its
person was respected.

Sparrows were admitted into the cage of this bird when it had
attained adult size; it made catches from the beginning, improving
steadily in skill with practice. Live Norway rats were then tried,
which the bird killed with ease. A medium-sized Belgian hare was
not attacked (May 18, 1930) nor was a guinea pig (June 1). The
guinea pig, moreover, by frantic efforts to escape and possibly by its
alien strangeness, frightened the owl into Hying up and clinging to
the wire of the cage top. For days the demoralized raptor would not
attack even the rats which it had previously handled with facility.
Five days of fasting (June 21 to 26) were required to force this bird
into killing its own food again, rats being turned into the cage at
intervals during this time. On July 7, it was fed, handed, and freed
in a suitable woodlot about a mile south of Madison. It was shot
four miles east of the city by a hunter, December 20.

One of the wild grown juveniles struck and killed a fifth-grown
cottontail rabbit on its first attempt (May 25, 1930). The owl started
at once to tear off pieces from the victim’s head and to swallow them.
Thus, without past experience, this wild creature did what was to he
done, if a trifle crudely, which may be contrasted with the ineptness
of pets that couldn’t do so well several months later. Rats were taken
care of with equal effectiveness and more precision, but the darting
guinea pig likewise drove this bird up on the wire (June 1). As in
the other case, the guinea pig incident ruined the confidence of this
owl as a killer. Thereafter (up to June 17), it too was afraid of the
rats which should have given it no alarm. Especially was this true of
rats that advanced; rats that retreated stood an infinitely better chance
of finding an owl on top of them.

The hand-reared horned owls did not become really wild as
long as they were dependent upon man for food — at least for twenty
months, which is the longest that I have information on a single indi-
vidual. They became cross and excitable as they matured, neverthe-
less, and resented more and more any liberties taken with them. The
two tamest of my experimental birds at the age of four months would
be likely to draw blood if picked up carelessly, largely 1 think as an
unintentional consequence of increased strength. Subjected to what

214

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

they seemingly felt indignities, they pinched and grasped with beak
and talons in a rough but not vicious manner; that is, their defense
inflicted pain but not injury. The two did not change much after
four months save to become more irritable and to lose a little — in-
credibly little — of their helplessness.

The experimental work gave rise to sundry opinions as to what
would happen if the tame owls ever got away. Partial enlightenment
was forthcoming in a couple of instances. A juvenile about three
months old escaped to fly from tree to tree and to alight on a lawn
more than a quarter mile away. There it sat, apparently bewildered.
Llpon noticing my approach, it came to meet me on foot. The other
instance concerned two owls (aged six and nineteen months) kept in a
small building which was broken open one night by human marauders.
Morning came, and the oldest bird was waiting inside, despite the open
door. The youngest was gone. On the third day the young man who
was caring for the captives heard the familiar call of a hungry juve-
nile Horned Owl in a woods near by. As he came within fifty yards
or so of the woods, an owl sailed out, flew directly toward him, and lit
at his feet to be picked up.

Although horned owls as a rule seemed to show an underlying uni-
formity of behavior, the temperaments of some birds were noted to
differ considerably.

To illustrate: Of the ten tethered juveniles, eight characteristi-

cally sought escape by flight at each visit during the gathering of food
habits data. One employed a definite sequence of hiding, flight, and
offense tactics; first, it would conceal itself by “freezing” at the base
of the tree to which tethered; then, it would endeavor to take wing;
and, last, it would attack. The tenth rarely sought to hide or fly but
would await visitors in plain sight, scowling sourly, and requiring
only that human legs be within range of the tether chain before it
would arrive in all sincerity, eight talons and beak.

This latter youngster was the only one of the tethered ten that
ever learned to adapt itself to my semi-weekly visits. It learned to
leave me alone if I left it alone, but at the least hint of overt intent on
my part, it would be at me, the embodiment of utter ferocity. This
juvenile, the most savage with which I have had dealings, happened
to be of the same brood as the most helpless and innocuous pel owl
I have known.

Nesting studies brought out temperament differences in adult owls,
also. Altogether, I have had sufficient intimate relations with adults
from twenty nests to speak positively. Parents from eleven would

Behavior of the Great Horned Owl

215

keep at a distance, sometimes being visible through the trees 150 to
200 yards off, but usually in a position to see, if unseen themselves.
At any rate, this is the impression I gained from hearing faint though
eloquent hooting deeper in the woods. Nine sets of parents would
"talk” and snap their bills from trees within fifty yards of the nest,
these birds being in sight most of the time. Three nests were danger-
ous to visit alone, on account of the old birds attacking. I have twice
been badly lacerated by adults defending their young, to say nothing
of the occasions I have saved my skin by dodging or by waving off
assaults. The presence of a second person completely discouraged
actual attacks.

In general the parents displayed the most solicitude toward their
young about the time that the latter were ready to leave the nest.
This was the culmination of attachments which appeared quite loose
prior to the hatching of the eggs. The old birds, too, would fly off
and leave downy owlets just out of the egg without apparent reluctance.
As the owlets grew, the parents tended to remain more in the immedi-
ate environs in the event of disturbances. Usually one of the birds
stayed much closer — presumably the female — though sometimes both
would perch in the same tree or even on the same limb. Their near-
ness was directly proportional to the nearness of the investigator to
the young; when he was up in the nest, the old ones not infrequently
came to the next tree; as he descended they made off into the woods;
if he ascended again, they returned.

As parental attachment reaches its height, the adults will often
go to any lengths within their physical powers in behalf of their
young, even to the extent of flapping on the ground as if crippled.
This I have witnessed three times, twice (on consecutive years and in
the same woodlot) by what I believe to he the same owl. A more
ridiculous sight than a perfectly functional horned owl simulating a
broken wing is difficult to imagine. In all three instances in which
I observed the broken wing trick to he employed, the crazed parents
had first tried everything else in their repertoire; the rarity of this
sort of performance — in my experience, at least — is possibly indi-
cative of instincts now hardly more than residual from early avian
phylogeny.

Parental obligations to nestlings seem fulfilled for the most part
by protection against interlopers and by making available a certain
amount of food. The feeding relations of old to young appear on
the whole to be indiscriminate. The owlet that gets fed is the one
that wants the food and takes it. If the last owlet to hatch from a

216

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

clutch of eggs is able to feed regardless of the competition of its
stronger nest-mates, it lives; otherwise it is neglected and dies.

Attempting to gain further insight into horned owl family life, I
once placed in a nest containing two large juveniles a tame youngster
of corresponding age (April 24, 1930). The old birds apparently
accepted the stranger without much ado, for the latter was seen to be
completely at home the next visit (April 26). May 4, all three juve-
niles, now ready to fly, were sitting together, looking over the edge of
the nest.

The intensity of parental devotion toward the tethered owls was
on the wane by June, and this doubtless applies to the free juveniles,
now capable flyers. Adults attending two tethered juveniles success-
fully kept late into the season of 1931 were slackening in their duties
still more by the middle of July, but continued to bring food until
release of the young, August 8. There was no doubt, nevertheless,
that the food was being brought in diminishing quantities coincident
with the “weaning” of the free juveniles, the hungry calling of which
could be heard throughout almost any occupied woodlot.

The obvious deduction is that the species will look after its young
just about so long in accordance with inherent reproductive mechanics.
The length of the feeding period of young by adults does not, then,
seem correlated with the variable individual needs of the young as
affected by circumstances. The “weaning" of mid-summer culminates
the protracted juvenile education, whether, it may be presumed, the
young have learned to hunt or not.

One of the best observations I have been able to make on “wean-
ing” had to do not with horned owls but with screech owls. In this
case (July 5, 1932; Ruthven, Iowa), three young and an adult were
watched for a time between sunset and dark. The family was feeding
on some sort of insects, the identity of which could not be made out
in the dusk. The young swooped frequently, with more or less suc-
cess. When followed to successive perches by a mendicant youngster,
the old bird took flight again.

From scattered, fragmentary bits of data a reasonable inference
can he drawn that the adult owls by indifference and maybe by pun-
ishment gradually compel their troublesome progeny to shift for them-
selves. I am convinced that no normal juvenile horned owl fails to
take advantage of family support as long as such is to be had. When
deprived, it does what it has to.

Behavior of the Great Horned Owl

217

Where does the juvenile go, after it takes up a wholly independent
existence? Of thirteen horned owl nestlings (birds that had never
been tamed, tetbered, or experimented with in any way to reduce their
prospects for survival) personally banded in 1930 and 1931, three
were reported shot within a year or so, all at points thirteen to twenty
miles of where banded. Similarly scanty data from banded nestling
barred owls bear out tbe belief that the young of resident large owl
species, generally, take up quarters a considerable distance from their
natal woodlots. This wandering furnishes an explanation for the num-
bers of horned owls caught seasonally by pole traps on some game
farms and hunting club properties.

Conversely, there is good though not indubitable evidence that
tbe Wisconsin adults studied tended to stay from year to year in the
same territory. Unfortunately, I have nothing as definite as banding
data on adults upon which to base conclusions. I have merely ob-
served in a few instances distinctive behavior on the part of owls seen
in woodlots on consecutive years and also continued partiality for cer-
tain nest sites not intrinsically of exceptional attractiveness.

For late summer and early autumn, data on horned owl behavior
have been virtually unobtainable until tbe falling of leaves lessened
the cover value of deciduous woods. The owls’ choice of daylight
hiding places restricted to a comparatively limited number of trees
still retaining leaves or those draped with vines or otherwise adequate,
their retreats may then be better located. It proved extremely difficult
— virtually impossible — to make direct observations on the owls them-
selves, except by flushing the birds, to confirm the fact that certain
places were being used; tbe main reliance was placed on reading of
fresh signs about the roost.

Prior to 1932, it was noted casually that horned owls were apt to
station themselves in the fall in the near neighborhood of old stick
nests (hawk or crow) which they would appropriate in the spring.
During the season of 1931-1932 this was checked up more carefully.
In the late fall, 1931, five horned owl territories were discovered in
regular use (judged by birds seen and by accumulations of feces and
pellets beneath roost trees), of which four proved to be nesting areas.
Three other nesting areas, not actually visited in the fall, betrayed by
old pellets their early occupancy. Exception: one pair did not move
into their nesting territory until January or later, though breeding
was not delayed, as incubation had started by February 21, 1932.

218

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

None of the twenty-nine 1930-1932 Wisconsin horned owl nests
upon which personal data were procured showed evidence of having
been built or remodeled to any degree by the strigine occupants. In
practically every case the owls’ nest-making instincts seemed satisfied
by cleaning out the debris from the immediate bottom of the nesting
place and by lining the same with variable quantities of breast feathers.
Nest sites chosen were: red-tailed hawk nests, thirteen; crow nests,

eight; hollow trees, three; unidentified stick nests, two; holes or crevi-
ces in rock faces, two; fox-squirrel nest, one. Nests taken over were
usually in secluded locations, the prospective occupants requiring
mainly privacy and convenience; in other respects the birds displayed
very limited judgment in selecting nests, as four were of such flimsy
construction that they disintegrated during the storms or from use, to
dump eggs or owlets on the ground.

It is true that the precipitation of an owlet from a crumbling
nest is not necessarily an event of dire consequence to the species. If
the owlet is of fair size, it can lessen the violence of its fall by spread-
ing its part-grown flight feathers; if it is not this far fledged, it may
still be sufficiently tough to withstand a comparatively terrific impact.
Even young horned owls are put together to stay.

Once on the ground, if the owlet is too small to move with facility,
it will stay about where it fell and will come to regard that spot as
its proper nest, though it may be situated in the middle of a snow
bank. Owlets from two nests, reared on the ground from early in
their development, assumed the usual defense attitude upon the ap-
proach of a man but up to a certain size or age limit made no attempt
to leave, as did those of corresponding advancement finding themselves
in unfamiliar surroundings. Fallen owlets large enough to get along
well on the ground promptly moved off in almost any direction. These
wanderers were usually to be located hiding at the base of trees twenty
to two hundred yards from the original nests. Moving or remaining
stationary, the owlets are cared for by the old birds; since the adults
are both faithful providers and formidable protectors, it may make
scant difference in the end whether the young spend their full time in
the nest or not.

At any rate, there is little question of the horned owl within its
geographic range being a successful species under ordinary wilderness
and backwoods conditions and in some settled communities. Essen-

Behavior of the Great Horned Owl

219

tially a bird of low intelligence, it is equipped with a set of stereotyped
behavior patterns, elfective nevertheless in enabling it to take care of
itself generally, except when confronted by novel emergncies or those
racially recent. While the horned owl does learn, it learns with diffi-
culty proportional to the remoteness of the new experience from its
regular life routine. It exhibits, too, a ponderous adaptiveness by
which it sometimes lives in environments as diverse as the buckbrush
patches of treeless plains and the suburbs of cities.

In the face of man’s persecution its survival is perhaps attri-
butable as much to its secretiveness as to any single factor aside from
accidentally favoring circumstances. To the pole-trap it has no answer,
nor to the shooting of its young from its nests, nor to the destruction
of its environment. It has hut the one refuge — sometimes adequate,
sometimes not — from the complex perils arising through man and
man’s enmity. It simply keeps out of sight.

A study of the food habits of the horned owl re-emphasizes the
same mechanistic undercurrent conspicuous elsewhere in the species
life history. Its food habits as a species are governed by where it is,
by what it has access to (see Errington, Paul L., Food habits of
southern Wisconsin raptors, Part I — Owls. The Condor, Vol. XXXIV,
July-August, 1932, pp. 176-186). One can expect practically any animal
within its habitat and of a size within its power to handle to he repre-
sented in the diet of the Great Horned Owl ; exempt oidy are species
the habits and adaptations of which do not leave them vulnerable.
Commonly taken are the more nocturnal animals such as rabbits, fly-
ing squirrels, rats, mice, skunks, weasels, shrews, small owls, large in-
sects; and more occasionally diurnal forms handicapped by darkness,
i. e., poultry, grouse, flickers, meadowlarks, many small birds, fox-
squirrels, chipmunks, etc.

From the examination of some 1900 pellets I feel justified in
saying that choice plays a minimum role in the horned owls’ routine
hunting. The horned owl presumably goes out with the intention of
getting something to eat, to take what it encounters first and is able
to get. The victim is usually a rabbit, for the apparent reason that
rabbits are conspicuous, more or less abundant, and easily obtainable.
They are large and satisfying and may serve for several meals. Con-
ceivably, the individual owl may recognize somewhat the superiority
of the rabbit as prey and he influenced in its hunting thereby, hut

220

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

other forms likewise highly available will not be overlooked. The
horned owl is not particular when it wants to eat. Even carrion is not
unacceptable. I knew a horned owl to feed on a skinned cow carcass
when the surrounding woods held plenty of cottontails (March, 1931).

When the captive horned owls had eaten they were satisfied,
though extraordinary availability of prey would tempt them to kill
more than they needed at the time. Living prey by its movements in
proximity to feeding owls diverted the latters’ attention from killed
food already in possession and so invited attack, which did or did not
materialize. The reaction, as observed in experiments with horned
owls and English Sparrows, seemed wholly reflexive, in no way sug-
gesting any particular enjoyment of killing on the part of the preda-
tors used.

In the wild, killing in excess of immediate needs is indicated by
the occurrence now and then of two heads of medium-sized individuals
of prey in the same pellet. This does not appear to happen often,
however, except during the nesting season when the adults must bring
in more food than they themselves require, either for the owlets
directly or in anticipation of the hatching of the eggs. The evidence
from fall and winter pellets shows that horned owls are prone to eat
all or nearly all of a given kill. For example, hones of some prey
species so exceptional that they could reasonably belong only to the
identical individual may be present in two or more pellets from a
certain owl.

Broadly, the horned owl is a simple creature of simple needs.
It has physical and psychic qualities of positive, neutral, or negative
survival value. Its nocturnal habits and silent approach give it a
distinct advantage over many types of prey; these, combined with the
might of its talons compensate greatly for its inflexibility of behavior.
Where the direct and indirect pressure of man is heavy against the
species, its natural endowments may not suffice. But whether it thrives
or declines, the species will doubtless continue to respond to the vicis-
situdes of its existence in much the same manner one may suppose it
always has, living if it can, because it can.

Iowa State College,

Ames, Iowa.

Snowy Owl Invasion of Ohio in 1930-31

221

THE SNOWY OWL INVASION OF OHIO IN 1930-1931

BY LAWRENCE E. HICKS

The Snowy Owl ( Nyctea nyctea ) regularly winters far to the
south of its breeding range, some birds probably crossing our northern
border into the United States every year, though in very small num-
bers. At more or less regular intervals, the species in its migratory
wanderings penetrates far into the northern part of the United States
in considerable numbers. Such invasions have occurred in 1876-77,
1882-83, 1889-90, 1892-93, 1896-97, 1901-02, 1905-06, 1917-18, 1926-
27, and again recently in 1930-31. Snowy Owls are also known to
have entered Ohio in some numbers in 1909-10, 1910-11, 1912-13, and
1921-22.

Huntington (1931) has summarized the theoretical biological,
meteorological, and astronomical causes of periodic fluctuations in
numbers of a species as presented at the Matamek conference on bio-
logical cycles in 1931. Regardless of what these causes may he,
there is abundant evidence to show that there are well marked cyclical
fluctuations in the abundance of northern mice, lemmings, the arctic
ptarmigan, and other animals in the arctic regions which comprise the
food supply of the Snowy Owl.

To determine the extent of these periodic southward migrations
of the Snowy Owl or to make an approximate estimate of the number
of individuals of the species involved, is a gigantic task — one which
requires the cooperative efforts of hundreds of field workers in every
section of eastern United States and Canada. To make similar obser-
vations of the species during the nesting season or throughout the nor-
mal winter range would be practically impossible at the present time.

Fortunately, the prey of the Snowy Owl is practically the same as
that of the arctic fox. An abundance of the food species is followed
by a rapid increase in numbers of both foxes and owls. When the
food supply fails, the Snowy Owl apparently migrates southward to
areas unaffected by the food shortage while the arctic foxes are quickly
reduced in numbers by starvation and trapping in large numbers.

The dates of the Snowy Owl invasions as recorded in ornithologi-
cal publications synchronize almost perfectly with reported fluctua-
tions in numbers of arctic foxes. A record catch of foxes by Cana-
dian trappers is followed by a definite invasion of Snowy Owls. These
paired maximums and invasions occur at intervals of three to five,
but usually, four years. Gross (1931) has compared the dates for
Snowy Owl invasions with the years of maximum numbers of arctic

222

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

foxes as determined by Mr. Charles Elton, of Oxford, England, who
tabulated the number of arctic fox pelts sold by trappers at the Fort
Chima post of the Hudson Bay Company from 1872 to 1930.

Dr. Gross lists 1909, 1913, and 1921 as years in which arctic
foxes reached maximum numbers but with no known definite accom-
panying Snowy Owl invasion. Many specimens of the species, how-
ever, were taken in Ohio during the winter of 1909-1910 and 1912-
1913 and at least one specimen during the winter of 1921-1922. Thus,
we see that the records for at least forty years indicate a very definite
relationship between the maximum number of arctic foxes and the
Snowy Owl invasions (and the abundance of animals comprising the
food supply of both species) .

During the winter of 1930-1931 from the beginning of the Snowy
Owl invasion, the writer endeavored to compile as complete a list as
possible of all Ohio records. All taxidermists of the state were noti-
fied of the work and requested to mail in records. The aid of each of
approximately seventy game protectors of the Ohio Division of Con-
servation was solicited. A large number of records came from this
source, as many protectors interviewed fifty or more observers in their
county territory concerning the presence of “white owls’". During the
winter season, the writer personally visited and engaged in other orni-
thological research in fifty-nine of the eighty-eight counties of the
state, interviewing some 320 observers concerning records. In addi-
tion numerous notices were published in local and state papers and
195 questionaires were mailed to ornithologists of the state, including
all Ohio members of the Wilson Ornithological Club.

The response of these efforts was most encouraging, splendid
cooperation on the part of everyone concerned making it possible to
tabulate what certainly is one of the most complete numerical counts
ever made in an area of state size. More than three-fourths of the
records were received from two or more sources and the capture of
one bird was actually listed in twelve different reports. The writer
wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to the several hundred coopera-
tors who so willingly furnished information.

The figures tabulated below certainly do represent a rather high
percentage of all birds actually observed or captured by man in the
state during the invasion. How many more actually crossed our bor-
ders but escaped detection, we can only surmise. Because of the eco-
nomic depression, many hunters could not afford to pay for the mount-
ing of birds shot or trapped. Several taxidermists reported a big
decrease in receipts and many birds left for mounting uncalled for.

Snowy Owl Invasion of Ohio in 1930-31

223

Certainly a much larger percentage of Snowy Owls captured failed
to find their way to taxidermists (the best source of records) than in
former years. Also the Snowy Owl invasion of 1926-27 made mounted
birds so common that they were no longer valued by sportsmen and
rural people as unusual or valuable prizes.

Fig. 55. Snowy Owl Invasion of Ohio in 1930-31.

Gross (1927 and 1931) records 2363 Snowy Owls reported in the
United States during the 1926-27 invasion and 1313 birds in southern
Canada and the United States in 1930-31. Ohio reported 138 birds
in 1926-27 (Thomas, 1928) and 126 in 1930-31. Numbers reported
in some other states during the two invasions are as follows: Maine,

589-59; Massachusetts, 294-53; Connecticut, 58-16; New York. 495-63;
Michigan, 592-29; and Minnesota, 103-44. Exclusive of Ohio records,
and considering only the actual number of birds reported which is

224

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

thought to be representative of the total migratory movement, the
1930-31 invasion was only about one-sixth as large as the 1926-27
invasion. This would hardly seem true of Ohio. In 1926-27 the
species received wide-spread publicity in the state and the 138 records
compiled by Mr. Thomas certainly are fairly representative of the
actual numbers present at that time. With nearly as many birds (126 )
reported in 1930-31. it would seem that this recent invasion must have
been at least half as large as the first. Also, the height of the inva-
sion, considering the whole of eastern United States and Canada came
near the middle of November in both cases. The height in numbers in
Ohio, as determined by Mr. Thomas in 1926-27, took place about
December 15, while the height in 1930-31 did not occur before Janu-
ary 10. This very considerable variation in the date of appearance in
maximum numbers is indeed interesting. Its significance, though per-
haps of importance, is hardly evident at the present time.

Mr. Thomas lists 138 records from 83 localities and 36 counties;
the present list includes 126 records from 82 localities and 34 counties.
In 1926-27, 92, or 67 per cent, of the birds reported were killed or
captured while in the recent invasion only 51, or 40 per cent, suffered
the same fate. This, perhaps, is largely due to the fact that the height
of the migration came nearly a month later in 1930-31 or mostly fol-
lowing and not during the hunting season. Also, in 1926-27 most of
the birds reported appeared to be in a somewhat dazed condition and
not at all at home in their new environment. Many were absolutely,
without fear and others appeared sick. Numerous birds at that time
were captured by hand, (lying into automobiles or attracted by bright
lights. A number were struck down by railroad locomotives, picked
up while in an exhausted condition or found in some unusual situa-
tion which hardly seemed a logical stopping place for a normal bird
of prey. Of eleven stomachs examined by the writer at that time, ten
were entirely empty while one contained a small quantity of chicken
feathers. Nearly all birds handled were considerably emaciated.

In 1930-31 records of birds taken under unusual conditions were
very few. Most birds captured or observed appeared normal in every
respect and not dazed or emaciated but as much at home as our native
owls. This undoutedly accounts for a much lower percentage of the
birds being killed or captured and leads me to believe that in Ohio,
and perhaps elsewhere, the 1930-31 invasion did approach that of

Snowy Owl Invasion of Ohio in 1930-31

225

1926-27 in numbers much more closely than the figures actually re-
ported would indicate. In 1930-31 a large number of the records
listed were of birds reported to have been present in some particular
locality for Irom two to nine weeks, the birds being observed almost
daily hunting over stubble fields or bottom lands where meadow mice
were abundant. All observers questioned were of the opinion that
certainly a large percentage of the birds of this recent invasion did
succeed in returning to northern regions in the spring, escaping the
tragic fates of most of the owls of 1926-27. Of nine stomachs ex-
amined in 1930-31, all hut one contained some food, including two
Bob-whites, parts of a Ring-necked Pheasant, a sparrow, remains of a
Hungarian Partridge, one rat, hits of two chickens, and eight mice.

COMPARISON OF SNOWY OWL INVASIONS IN OHIO

1926-27 1930-31

Counties of Ohio reporting Snowy Owls 36 34

Number of localities reporting Snowy Owls 83 82

Number of individuals reported 138 126

Number of individuals killed or captured 92 51

Percentage of total number killed or captured 67% 40%

Number of individuals in northern third of Ohio 100 101

Date of earliest record 11-3-26 10-15-30

Height of migration 12-15-26 1-12-31

Date of latest record 5 14-27 5-12-31

Number of individuals reported by months —

October 0 2

November 25 5

December 49 19

January 6 39

February 11 33

March 5 6

April 1 4

May 1 1

The distribution of records received, as the map shows, was
northernly, four-fifths of the returns being from the Lake Erie counties
or the counties of northwestern Ohio along the Maumee River, especi-
ally Paulding, Defiance, Henry, Lucas, Wood, Ottawa, Sandusky, Erie,
and Ashtabula Counties. Eew birds penetrated to the southern part
of the state hut records were much commoner throughout central Ohio
than in a belt from twenty to sixty miles south of Lake Erie. On the
whole the distribution of records is remarkably similar to that of the
1926-27 invasion.

226

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

Bibliography

Anderson, R. M., 1907. Birds of Iowa, p. 266.

Bailey, Bert Heald, 1918. The Raptorial Birds of Iowa, Iowa Geol. Surv. Bull.
No. 6, Des Moines, la.

Baird, S. F., T. M. Brewer, R. Ridgway, 1905. A History of North American
Land Birds, Vol. III. Little, Brown and Co., Boston.

Barrows, Walter Bradford, 1912. Michigan Bird Life, Special Bull, of Dept, of
Zool. and Physiology of Mich. Agr. College. Mich. Agri. Coll. Press.

Bendire, Capt. Chas., 1892. Life Histories of North American Birds, p. 389.
Bruner, L., R. H. Wolcott, and M. H. Swenk, 1909. A Preliminary Review of
the Birds of Nebraska, p. 56.

Bunker, C. D., 1913. Birds of Kansas, p. 148.

Butler, A. W., 1897. Birds of Indiana.

Chapman, F. M., 1912. Birds of Eastern North America, p. 315.

Cory, C. B., 1909. Birds of Illinois and Wisconsin, p. 497.

Dawson, William Leon, 1903. Birds of Ohio, Wheaton Publishing Co., Columbus,
Ohio.

Deane, Ruthven, 1902. Unusual Abundance of the Snowy Owl ( Nyctea nyctea ) in
New England and Canada, Auk, Vol. 19, pp. 271-279.

Deane, Ruthven, 1906. Another Large Flight of Snowy Owls, Auk, Vol. 23, pp.
100-101.

Deane, Ruthven, 1907. The Snowy Owl ( Nyctea nyctea ) not Generally Abundant
in the Winter of 1906-1907, Auk, Vol. 24, pp. 217-219.

Deane, Ruthven, 1872. Snowy Owl Migrations, Bull. Nutt. Ornith. Club, Vol. 2,
p. 9.

Fisher, A. K., 1893. Hawks and Owls of the United States, p. 183.

Forbush, Edward Howe, 1927. Birds of Massachusetts, Part II, Commonwealth
of Mass., Norwood Press, Norwood, Mass.

Gross, Alfred 0., 1927. The Snowy Owl Migration of 1926-27, Auk, Vol. XLIV,
No. 4.

Gross, Alfred O., 1931. Snowy Owl Migration, 1930-1931, Auk, Vol. XLVIII,
pp. 501-511.

Goss, N. S , 1891. History of the Birds of Kansas, p. 307.

Hatch, P. L., 1892. Birds of Minnesota, p. 217.

Huntington, Ellsworth, 1931. The Mateniek Conference on Biological Cycles,
1931. (Discussion of periodic fluctuations in numbers of a species), Science,
Vol. 74, No. 1914. Sept. 4.

Kirkpatrick, John, 1859. Rapacious Birds of Ohio. Ohio Agr. Rept. for 1858,
pp. 341-383.

Jones, Lynds, 1903. The Birds of Ohio, p. 108. Ohio Academy of Science, Special
Paper No. 6, Oct., 1903, Columbus, Ohio.

Ridgway, R., 1889. Ornithology of Illinois, p. 422.

Ridgway, R., 1914. Birds of North and Middle America. Part VI, Bull, 50.
U. S. National Museum, p. 768.

Sutton, George Miksch, 1927. Snowy Owls in Pennsylvania. Cardinal, July.
Sutton, George Miksch, 1928. The Birds of the Pymatuning Swamp and Con-
neaut Lake, Crawford Co., Pa. Annals of the Carnegie Museum, Pittsburg,
Pa., Vol. XVIII, pp. 138-139. (Reprinted separately, Mar. 31, 1928).
Thomas, Edward S., 1928. The Snowy Owl Invasion of Ohio in 1926-1927. Ohio
State Museum Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 64-69.

Warren, B. H , 1888. Birds of Pennsylvania, p. 118.

Wheaton, J. M., 1879. Birds of Ohio. Geol. Surv. of Ohio. Vol. IV, pp. 413-414.
Woodruff, F. M., 1907. Birds of the Chicago Area, p. 106.

Ohio Division of Conservation.

Bureau of Scientific Research.

Columbus. Ohio.

The Cormorants of South Dakota

227

THE CORMORANTS OF SOUTH DAKOTA

BY ARTHUR LUNDQUIST

For a number of years Double-crested Cormorants ( Phalacrocorax
auritus auritus ) have nested on the islands of Waubay Fake, Day
County, South Dakota. Waubay Lake is about five miles northwest
of the city of Webster. The islands on Waubay Lake are small. The
east island contains about one acre. The west island is only about
one-hall this size. There are no trees so that the nests of cormorants
are built on the rocky points or on the sandy soil.

Besides the cormorants, Ring-billed Gulls, Common Terns, and a
few ducks may also be found nesting. The gulls number about two
hundred pairs, the terns perhaps somewhat more than this.

The size of the cormorant colony has varied somewhat from year
to year. Also the birds have shifted from one island to the other, de-
pending on the depth of water, etc. The drouth of the past few years
has undoubtedly forced many birds in other regions to hunt new
grounds and many of these may have joined the Waubay Lake colony.
In 1931 the colonies on the east and west islands on South Waubay
Lake numbered at least seven hundred pairs. This is perhaps the
largest colony of this species within the United States.

Toung birds may be found in the nest from the middle of May
until into September. New nests are built and birds hatched through-
out the summer. I am inclined to believe that these late nests are built
by birds that have had unsuccessful nesting elsewhere.

I have visited the colonies at least once during the nesting season
for the past seven years. During the past three seasons, I have banded,
a number of the young. The returns show the range of the bird to
be about as reported by Lewis.1 Also one can not make a rule as to
time of migration. Birds may be in South Dakota at the last of No-
vember or in Louisiana and Texas by October first.

In all I have banded 1175 cormorants. Each year I have tried
to make a late visit to the colonies to check the birds which may die
on the island. Nesting as closely as they do here a number of birds
are killed each year because of crowding. When the birds are old
enough to waddle out of the nest, I have found that if frightened the
birds will bunch closely and those unfortunate enough to be under the
pile die of suffocation. Twenty-six banded birds were found dead in
the three years. I believe crowding to be the chief cause of their death.

1Harrison T. Lewis, The Natural History of the Double-Crested Cormorant.
Ottawa, Canada, 1929.

228

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

Fig. 56. The Double-crested Cormorant colony on the island in Waubay
Lake, S. D. Photograph by the author.

Fig. 57. Closer view of t he birds. Photograph by W. F. Kubiehek.

The Cormorants of South Dakota

229

Fig. 58. Various views in the Waubay cormorant colony. Photographs by W. F. Kubichek.

230

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

The hunter takes the greatest toll of cormorants. During the three
years 169 birds have been reported dead by states as follows: South

Dakota, 79; Minnesota, 19; Louisiana, 28; Iowa, 8; Nebraska, 3; Mis-
souri, 7; Kansas, 3; Arkansas, 6; Tennessee, 1; Illinois, 3; Texas, 3;
Oklahoma, 2; Mississippi, 3; Alabama, 1; Wisconsin, 1; Province of
Manitoba, 1; Republic of Cuba, 1. I do not know whether the report
from Cuba is unusual or not. I must admit I was somewhat surprised
to receive it.

During the summer of 1929, birds were banded in the nest in
June, July, and August. Looking over the notes it is apparent at a
glance, that the reports of dead birds are much more numerous in
the late banding of August birds.

The records show that 314 birds were banded in June. During
the fall of 1929 and January of 1930 I find 34 of these reported dead,
or 10.8 per cent of the number banded. In July, 61 were banded with
9 or 14.75 per cent dead that fall and winter. In August, 107 were
banded with 36 or 33.64 per cent reported dead.

The recoveries from the June group were divided between nine
states from South Dakota to Louisiana. The recoveries from the Au-
gust group were as follows: South Dakota and South Dakota-Minne-

sota boundary lakes, 30; Arkansas, 2; Nebraska, 2; Oklahoma, 1;
Louisiana, 1. Birds in the August group were killed in South Dakota
from September 16 until November 28. The chain of lakes in eastern
South Dakota is well known for its duck hunting so that there are
many hunters in this area.

One may assume that many of the birds which were unable to (ly
when banded in August were but poor flyers when the hunting season
opened on September 16. Also, these birds were not prepared to mi-
grate and therefore were forced to run the gauntlet throughout most
of the season in a heavily hunted region.

More than one-third of the August nestlings does seem to me a
large number to shoot just for the fun of shooting.

Peabody Hospital,

Webster, South Dakota.

THE WILSON BULLETIN

Published at Sioux City, Iowa, by the Wilson Ornithological Club.

The present editorial organization is as follows: T. C. Stephens, Editor-in
Chief, Sioux City, Iowa; Myron H. Swenk, University of Nebraska, Lincoln,
Nebraska; Albert F. Ganier, Nashville, Tennessee; Alfred M. Bailey, Chicago
Academy of Sciences, Chicago, Illinois; R. D. Hissong, Sioux City, Iowa.

The subscription price in the United States is $1.50 a year, and 50 cents a
number; in all other countries of the International Postal Union the price is
$1.75 a year, and 60 cents a number. Subscriptions and orders for single copies
should be addressed to the Secretary, Dr. Jesse M. Shaver, Peabody College,
Nashville, Tennessee, U. S. A.

EDITORIAL

We Are Happy to Present in this issue a paper by Dr. Frank R. Lillie, the
distinguished embryologist of the University of Chicago, and author of one of the
best books on avian embryology, “The Development of the Chick”. I bis article
penetrates into the problem of the physiological causes of the color pattern of
the feather. While the color pattern of the individual feather may he determined
by hormones, as Dr. Lillie and his colleagues have shown, one may wonder if
these internal factors are sufficient to account for plumage pattern, or whether
the latter is due in part to the operation of natural selection, also. It may still
be possible that, after the color pattern of the feather has been determined by
internal processes, natural selection may play a part in t lie elimination or survival
of the organism possessing it. What external factors may lie behind the varia-
tion in quantities of hormones in nature, to bring about the varying color pat-
tern? Or, is there less fluctuation in color pattern than has been supposed, and
more orthogenetic evolution, depending directly upon internal factors.'' Many
of our readers are field students of birds, but we believe that they will be in-
terested in this glimpse at the experimental aspect of the biology of birds.

The most promising field for research in biology today is in the direction of
animal activity, physiology, behavior, etc. Anatomy and classification have had
their day — these subjects are not being emphasized in modern biological research.
Only here and there are morphological problems of importance found. There
may still be some discoveries concerning the relationships of the larger groups;
but most of the systematists of today are driven to the work of making subspecies,
the biological significance of which is doubtful. And all of these taxonomic
problems can be taken care of by a relatively few specially trained men. This
is a narrow field for the average man with an interest in ornithology. The young
man who looks forward to a professional career in ornithology would do well
to consider the field of experimental laboratory work in development; or the
field of economic ornithology and game management; or the field of animal be-

232

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

havior and psychology, including territory problems. In preparation for these
pursuits the student will need all the biological training he can get, including
psychology, physiology, ecology, systematic botany, entomology, etc., and chemistry.

Modern studies in animal behavior should be carried out first under natural
environment in the field, as far as possible; then results and conclusions should be
checked in the laboratory, as far as possible. Field study and laboratory study
must go hand in hand in the solution of many modern biological problems; and
this will be true in ornithology, as well as in the study of most other special
groups. As an example ol the way these two methods may be applied we call
attention to the study of the Great Horned Owl, by Dr. Paul L. Errington, in this
issue. The opportunity for research in the physiology and behavior of birds, as
indicated by the papers of Dr. Lillie and Dr. Errington, is unlimited.

Since the preceding lines were written we have received the paper by Baldwin
and Kendeigh on "Physiology of Temperature of Birds”, reviewed in the pages of
this issue of the Bulletin. Here is another outstanding field of study for the
biological ornithologist. The work which is being done at Mr. Baldwin’s research
station is indicative of a new horizon and a new opportunity. The remedy for the
subspecies fad will be found in these new fields of endeavor. Nothing is likely
to give better scientific results than a combination of field study with laboratory
checks and experiments.

An Effort is being made to locate and list all existing sets of the old Iowa
Ornithologist , published between 1894 and 1898. Those who possess sets of this
early publication will confer a favor by informing Mr. Fred J. Pierce, Editor of
Iowa Bird Life, Winthrop, Iowa.

General Notes

233

GENERAL NOTES

Conducted by M. H. Swenk

The Yellow-throated Vireo in South Dakota. — The writer has found that
the Yellow-throated Vireo (Vireo fiavijrons ) is not a rare migrant in South Da-
kota, but was not convinced that the bird was a summer resident until July,
1932. Early in July, 1931, this vireo was found near Yankton, South Dakota, but
1 was unable to secure the bird. On July 4, 1932, however, several singing birds
were seen and one was collected to dispel any doubt as to the record. This bird
was examined and considered to he a breeding bird, and this adds another
species to the list of summer residents of southeastern South Dakota.- — Wili.iam
Youngworth, Sioux City, Iowa.

Nesting of Prairie Warbler Two Years in Identical Location. — During
the past few years the Prairie Warbler ( Dendroica discolor ) has become a fairly
common summer bird in Upshur County, West Virginia, but it was not until 1930
that a nest was found. One was located in June of that year, near French Creek.
The nest was placed in a small apple tree in a brushy pasture, and on June 23 con-
tained three eggs. Rearing was never completed, however, for some prowling
animal broke up the nest, and, although the birds were still singing in the neigh-
borhood, we could not find out if they built again.

The birds returned in the summer of 1931, and on the evening of July 2, as
we were passing through the same pasture, curiosity prompted us to walk over to
the scrub apple tree where the nest had been found the previous year. Much to
our surprise, we found another nest, containing three eggs also, and located in
almost exactly the same place as that chosen the preceding season.

Bad luck attended this nest also, for it too was broken up before the eggs
hatched. We are wondering if the third attempt will he made, or if the spot will
be abandoned as definitely unlucky. — Maurice Brooks, French Creek, W. V a.

Wilson’s Snipe Feeding in Open Water. — On November 17 and 18, 1923,
I observed two Wilson’s Snipes ( Capella gallinago delicata ) feeding in shallow
water in the lake at Englewood Dam, Montgomery County, Ohio. They were
well out from the shore, among several small gravelly islands that were devoid of
all vegetation. A single Pectoral Sandpiper was their companion on both occasions.

My notes pertaining to the snipes, recorded at the time, read in part: “Fre-
quently they were observed feeding in water up to their bodies. As one crossed
from a small island to another about thirty feet away, it to all appearances swam
a few yards and then took wing, apparently from water too deep for it to stand in.
1 observed these birds at about twenty-five yards with 8x glasses as they probed
about in the water, and at this distance they were not disturbed at my presence.
Nearer approach caused them to fly only a short distance, usually to a sandbar
in shallow water. Once one flew to the muddy shore and disappeared in the
marginal vegetation.”

It was observed that the characteristic “scaipe'’ note was uttered when the
birds took wing on being disturbed by my movements, but it was not uttered when
the birds flew of their own accord. Often they squatted motionless in the water,
apparently a response to the concealment instinct which is so effective when the
bird is on land. Although Wilson’s Snipe is common here during the migrations
this is the only instance I have observed of its feeding sandpiper-fashion in open
water. — Benjamin J. Blincoe, Dayton, Ohio.

234

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

The Orange-crowned Warbler at Ann Arbor, Michigan. — On January 31,
1932, an Orange-crowned Warbler (Vermivora celata ) came to the feeding shelf
at my home and was discovered quietly eating suet in a banding trap. It was
apparently a female, for close examination revealed but a slight trace of orange
on the crown. The bird seemed to be in good condition and was banded and
released. This is the first winter record we have for Michigan.

Barrows (Michigan Bird Life, pp. 587-8, 1912) listed very few records for
the state, and considered it more rare than our present knowledge would indicate.
Norman A. Wood (Auk, xl, p. 338, 1923) and Walter Koelz (Wilson Bulletin,
xxxv, pp. 39-40, 1923, and Auk, xli, pp. 617-18, 1924) have added a few records,
but we now have so much additional data that it seems worth while to summarize
our knowledge of the species in the Ann Arbor region.

I have listed below only records for Washtenaw County and, except as other-
wise specified, all records refer to Ann Arbor. These records are based largely
on specimens in the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology and the records of
my friend Mr. A. D. Tinker whose field of experience in this region is unequaled.
Spring:

1869. April 24 — male collected by M. W. Harrington.

1902. May 14 — male collected by N. A. Wood.

1904. May 10 — male collected by N. A. Wood.

1905. May 13 — female collected by N. A. Wood.

1911. May 1 - — one seen by N. A. Wood.

1912. May 5 — one seen by A. D. Tinker and Frank Novy.

May 6 — male collected and two others seen by N. A. Wood at Portage
Lake.

1917. May 17 — one seen by N. A. Wood.

May 23 — two seen and a female collected by Walter Koelz.

1918. May 11 — male collected by Dr. Max M. Peet at Delhi .

May 14 — one seen at Ann Arbor by A. D. Tinker.

1919. May 3 — one collected by Walter Koelz.

May 4 — two seen by A. D. Tinker; also one on May 13.

1920. May 11 to 13 — “abundant at Ann Arbor”, Walter Koelz (Wilson Bulle-

tin, xxxv, p. 40).

1921. May 8 — one seen by Walter Koelz.

1922. May 12 — one seen by Walter Koelz.

1923. May 13 — two seen by A. D. Tinker.

1924. May 3 — one collected by Walter Koelz. “From the 8th to 12th they were

most numerous when four or five were seen daily. The last specimen
was noted on the 25th,” Koelz (Auk, xli, p. 618).

1926. May 2 — one seen by A. D. Tinker; also seen on May 4, 7, 9 (two), and 11.
1928. May 5 — three seen by A. D. Tinker.

Autumn :

1887. October 6 — three collected by Dr. A. K. Fisher at Ann Arbor (recorded in
a letter of March 10, 1908, to B. H. Swales).

1896. September 10 — male collected by Will MacLean.

1906. October 3 — male collected by N. A. Wood at Portage Lake.

1913. October 19 — one seen by A. D. Tinker.

1916. September 13 — three seen hy A. D. Tinker.

1921. September 25 — one seen by A. D. Tinker; also one on October 9.

1923. October 14 — one seen by A. D. Tinker.

1925. October 4 - — three seen by A. D. Tinker. Another seen by him on Novem-

ber 1, although there had been snow and a temperature of 20° on
October 29.

The latest autumn record for Michigan is that of a male collected hy Walter
Koelz (Wilson Bulletin, xxxv, p. 40, 1923) on November 27. 1917, at Waterloo,
Michigan (not Ann Arbor as reported in the Auk, xl, p. 338). — Josselyn Van
Tyne, Museum of Zoology, Ann Arbor, Mich.

General Notes

235

A Cardinal s Odd Way of Catching Ants. — This incident concerning the
Eastei n Cardinal ( Richmondena cardinalis cardinalis) was related to me by a
fiiend, Mrs. Mary Heath Lee of Fairhope. Mrs. Lee is a very careful observer.
She says: Hearing a pattering on my porch one morning (early in July) I looked

out quickly. Cardinals were frequently about but they seldom came nearer than
the drinkingdmwl in the yard. But there was one (a male) on the porch inves-
tigating a dead cockroach. There was really very little of the insect left, but it
was surrounded by ants. The Cardinal first picked the ants from the cockroach’s
body and then from the porch floor. Probably with its broad beak the bird found
it difficult to pick up the ants. T was not near enough to see. But it began
walking back and forth, dragging its tail alongside, with the underside uppermost,
and though this was almost too much for its balance, it managed to stand and
pick from the underside of its tail the ants it had thus swept up.” — Helen M.
Edwards, Fairhope, Ala.

The Record of the Starling in Arkansas. — In W. J. Baerg’s recent “Birds
of Arkansas”, published in January, 1931, the record of the European Starling
( Sturnus vulgaris vulgaris) is given as from Fayetteville, and under date of Janu-
ary 25, 1930. This same source also states that this is the only record for the
state. Both of these statements are incorrect. Furthermore the Fayetteville rec-
ord is based on a rather uncertain sight observation, and could not be accepted
in any form except for the work of Mr. S. H. Weakly of Fort Smith, who estab-
lished the true state record January 18, 1930. On that date Mr. Weakly trapped
and banded the first Starling taken in the state, according to all available in-
formation. This bird was banded with Biological Survey band No. A239438.
Three days later Mr. Weakly banded four of the birds, with bands No. A239474-
75, A239495-96, and a sixth bird. No. A350691 on the following day. Since that
time and ending February 19, 1930, Mr. Weakly has banded twenty-three more
of the birds, for a total of twenty-nine from Fort Smith during the winter of
1929-30.

Of the above Mr. Weakly has received two returns, one No. A239476 (banded
January 21, 1930) being found dead by C. E. Dennis, in Moultrie County,
Illinois, March 3, 1930, and another No. A350721 (banded February 6, 1930) cap-
tured and released by M. Chambers at Athens, Illinois, January 19, 1931.

Mr. Weakly has been kind enough to furnish me with his records to supply
the above information, which establishes beyond question the state record. He
adds in his letter to me with the above information and records (June 6, 1932)
that: “Starlings were fairly plentiful here during the winter of 1928-29, ex-
tremely plentiful in 1929-30, very few in 1930-31, and lots of them last winter,

but the weather was so mild and feed so abundant that I did not band a single

one, although they fed in my garden among my traps.”

It is evident from the above that Mr. Weakly had established a sight record
for the Starling at least a year before banding a single individual, and that the
Starling can no longer be considered as accidental, but as an established winter
resident in Arkansas. It might be added that Fort Smith is on the extreme
western border of the state, and it is quite probable that the birds are locally

even more common at certain places on the eastern side of the state. — J. D.

Black, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kan.

236

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

American Egret in Lake County, Indiana. — A flock of four Egrets ( Cas -
merodius alba egretta ) were seen July 29, 1932, two miles west of Merrillville,
Lake County, Indiana, by Mr. W. C. Nelson and the writer. These birds, in a
small marsh, seemed not at all disturbed by the passing of automobiles on one of
the principal highways less than 100 yards away. — Philip A. Dumont, Des
Moines, loiva.

Some Iowa Birds in a Des Moines Collection. — While recently examining
several collections of birds from Central Iowa, a number of specimens were found
in the collection of Mr. D. J. Bullock of Des Moines, which are unusual enough
from Iowa to warrant publication.

Mr. Bullock secured these birds principally in Story County, Iowa, hut speci-
mens are represented from Jasper, Polk, Hamilton, Grundy, Hancock, and Dickin-
son Counties, as noted below. The bulk of the specimens have been taken since
1927, hut a few (from Jasper County) were collected in 1900-01. At the present
time the collection has been loaned to the Des Moines Public Schools and it is
kept in the Washington Irving Junior High School. Mr. Bullock has kindly
allowed me permission to publish these records.

Horned Grebe ( Colymbus auritus) . One killed in October, 1928, at Eagle
Lake, Hancock County. This and the next species were secured at the same time.

American Eared Grebe ( Colymbus nigricollis calif ornicus) . Four specimens
taken at Eagle Lake, Hancock County, during October, 1928. Bullock reported
these two species as abundant, hut as all of the specimens are in winter plumage
it would he difficult in the field to determine the number of each that were present.

White Pelican ( Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) . One bird out of a flock of six
was killed at Little Wall Lake, Hamilton County, in September, 1929.

Double-crested Cormorant ( Phalacrocorax auritus auritus). Two specimens
from Story County taken in October, 1927. Reported as a fairly common fall
migrant.

Hutchins’s Goose ( Branta canadensis hutchinsi) . A large flock of between
fifty and seventy-five was seen in Story County during October, 1927. Of the
two specimens secured one is preserved in this collection. This is the smaller
of the three forms of Canada Geese visiting Iowa, hardly larger than a drake
Mallard.

Lesser Snow Goose ( Chen hyperborea hyperborea ). Two killed out of a
flock of seven in Story County, March, 1928. Both are now in this collection.

Blue Goose ( Chen caerulescens) . One bird collected in Story County during
November, 1927.

Hooded Merganser ( Lophodyl.es cucullatus). A male taken at Little Wall
Lake, Hamilton County, in October, 1929. Bullock states that small (locks are
common during fall migration in this locality.

American Merganser (Mergus merganser americunus) . A male and female
collected at Little Wall Lake, Hamilton County, during September, 1929.

Swallow-tailed Kite ( Elanoid.es jorficatus forficatus) . An adult taken in
Jasper County during the fall of 1901. This is the only record Bullock has of
this species.

Eastern Goshawk ( Astur atricapillus at ricapillus) . One taken in Jasper
County during the winter of 1901.

General Notes

237

Harlans Hawk (Buteo borealis harlani) . There is one specimen taken in
Polk County during October, 1930, which shows the typical hlack streaking on
the reddish-black tail.

Rough-legged Hawk ( Buteo lagopus s.-johannis) . There are three specimens
from Story County taken in November, 1927. One of these is in the light
phase, one in the dark and the third in an intermediate plumage. Another speci-
men in the dark phase was taken during the winter of 1930-31 in Polk County.

Osprey ( Pandion haliaetus carolinensis) . One taken in Grundy County dur-
ing the fall of 1927.

Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) . A specimen of this rare straggler in
Iowa was secured by Bullock in Story County during the fall of 1927. The bird
is in adult plumage and judging from size should have been a female.

Eastern Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus umbellus) . There is a male and
female taken in Jasper County in March ,1901.

Greater Prairie Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido americanus) . Two specimens
secured from a flock of fifteen or twenty birds seen in Story County in December,
1927.

Yellow Rail ( Coturnicops noveboracensis) . Two killed in Story County dur-
ing September, 1928. Bullock says that this species is rather scarce in the
marshes near Ames.

Herring Gull ( Larus argentatus smith sonianus) . Two killed out of a flock
seen in Story County during March, 1928.

Ring-lulled Gull ( Larus delawarensis) . Four specimens taken at Eagle Lake,
Hancock County, October, 1928. Bullock states that this gull was present in
goodly numbers at that time of year and he has found that it always out-numbers
the Herring Gull in Story County.

Franklin’s Gull (Larus pipixcan) . Four collected at Eagle Lake, Hancock
County, in October, 1928. All are in winter plumage.

Bonaparte’s Gull (Larus Philadelphia) . One in winter plumage collected at
Spirit Lake, Dickinson County, October, 1931. Bullock reported them as num-
erous at that time.

Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus virginianus) . One with two nestlings
was taken in Story County during March, 1927. Bullock considers this species
fairly common in Polk County. At least twenty were seen during the winter of
1930-31 and one specimen secured.

Montana Horned Owl ( Bubo virginianus occidentals Stone). There is one
specimen taken in Story County during January, 1927, which must he referred to
this subspecies. Bullock states that the bird was killed during a severe spell of
cold weather. Inquiry showed that weather north had also been extreme with
much snow and ice. The bird was in very poor condition and appeared exhausted.

In this specimen the dark cross bars on the white belly are distirc'. a:v!
uniform, not clouded as in B. v. occidentalis. The whitish feathering of the
tarsi is without barring, and the facial disk is of a uniform grayish without
tawny markings.

The range for this subspecies as given in the A. 0. U. Check-List, 4th Edition,
1931, states that it is found in winter south to Nebraska and Wisconsin, not men-
tioning Iowa.

Snowy Owl ( Nyctea nyctea) . One secured in Jasper County during Decem-
ber, 1900. — Philip A. DuMont, Iowa City, Iowa.

238

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

New Birds for State College, Pennsylvania. — In 1909, at State College,
which is near the geographical center of Pennsylvania, Mr. J. K. Musgrave wrote
a thesis on the birds of that region. He listed 146 species of which six have not
been recorded there again. They are Red-throated Loon, two collected; Green-
winged Teal, one collected; Golden Eagle, two collcted; Brunnich’s Murre, one
collected in the winter of 1894 or 1895 (this specimen is in the oology collection
of the Pennsylvania State College); Snowy Owl, one collected in January, 1891;
and Blue-winged Warbler.

Since 1909 nearly a dozen people, studying or teaching in the College, have
recorded their observations, until today 217 species are listed for the place. Mr.
Thomas D. Burleigh, of the Biological Survey, published in numbers of the
Wilson Bulletin for June and September, 1924, and March, 1931, a very com-
prehensive report. Mr. R. C. Harlow has similar articles in the Auk of January,
April, and July, 1918, but aside from his nesting data the only species not covered
by Mr. Burleigh are Saw-whet Owl, Acadian Flycatcher, and Short-hilled Marsh
Wren.

The following are the species new to State College and vicinity since Mr.
Burleigh’s report:

Black-crowned Night Heron. One seen May 30, 1930, at Oak Hall (Dr.
Haskel B. Curry).

Eastern Least Bittern. Seen September, 1930, at Oak Hall (Curry).

Wood Duck. One female seen in Alan Seeger Forest (Mr. George M. Sutton).

Ring-necked Duck. One seen May 4, 1932 (Dr. Thomas C. Benton).

Canvas-back. One injured female captured alive by a farmer, in November,
1931 (Merrill Wood).

Lesser Scaup Duck. First noted in the fall of 1926 (Mr. J. Warren Large).
Seen each spring thereafter.

American Merganser. One seen April 11, 1932 (Benton and Wood).

Rough-legged Hawk. One seen November 10, 1929, over the College farms
( Curry) .

Ring-necked Pheasant. Introduced in 1925.

Barn Owl. One captured alive on December 10, 1928 (Miss Marjorie R.
Ross), and one seen October 4, 1931 (Wood).

Long-eared Owl. One collected in 1925 by a local resident (Wood).

Fish Crow. Seen and heard throughout the year (Wood).

Eastern Mockingbird. One appeared in town November 13, 1929, and re-
mained there until December 14, 1929 (Wood). Said to have been seen once
again on January 20, 1930.

Blue-gray Gnatcatcher. One seen spring of 1927 (Large), two seen May 18,
1930 (Curry and Wood), and one seen May 11, 1931 (Curry and Wood).

Northern Shrike. One seen on March 27, 1926 (Large), and one seen
November 23, 1930 (Curry).

White-eyed Vireo. One seen in the spring of 1927 (Large).

Philadelphia Vireo. One seen on September 21, 1930 (Curry).

Western Palm Warbler. One seen May 11, 1931 (Curry and Wood).

Kentucky Warbler. One seen May 8, 1927 (Ross).

Beat-tailed Crackle. Seen spring of 1927 at Oak Hall (Large).

Eastern Evening Grosbeak. Four seen April 13, 1930 (Wood).

Canadian Pine Grosbeak. Seen May 1, 1926 (Large), nine seen January 25,
1930 (Wood), and six seen March 30, 1930 (Wood).

General Notes

239

Eastern Lark Sparrow. One breeding record, including nest, June 27, 1931
(Miss Farida Willey), published in the Auk for January, 1932 (Wood).

Lincoln’s Sparrow. Seen September 28, 1929 (Curry), and September 21,
1930 (Curry), and two seen October 4, 1931 (Wood).

[lie following are some records that are perhaps noteworthy:

Baldpate. One seen April 11, 1932, and a pair seen May 14, 1932 (Wood),
the first to he seen since 1909.

Old-squaw. One seen April 21, 1932, at Oak Hall (Wood) ; only one other
record.

Eastern Screech Owl. Still all of the gray phase.

Red-bellied Woodpecker. One seen January 24, 1924 (Large) ; only one
other record.

Northern Cliff Swallow. Colony of forty-two nests in use found May 25,
1930, at Pennsylvania Furnace (Wood).

Northern Blue Jay. A flock of sixty-five counted near Shingletown, Septem-
ber 27, 1931 (Wood). — Merrill Wood, Harrisburg , Pa.

Brunnich’s Murre in Iowa. — Mr. Frank C. Pellett has recently placed in
the hands of the writer a specimen of Brunnich’s Murre (Uria lomvia lomvia) ,
which he secured at Atlantic, Cass County, Iowa, on December 16, 1896, this
being the date given on the original label attached to the specimen. A note re-
ferring to this specimen was published by J. H. Brown in the Iowa Ornithologist
(III, No. 1, p. 11, January, 1897); hut it was here reported as “probably the
Atlantic form, Uria troile, Linn.”, and as “captured alive, hut thoroughly ex-
hausted, Dec. 20th near Atlantic and died soon after”. Dr. R. M. Anderson, in
“The Birds of Iowa” (1907), includes this specimen in his account of Uria lomvia,
though probably by inference rather than examination, since Mr. Pellett has no
knowledge that it was examined at this time. The Auk for 1897 contains numer-
ous records of this species for the interior of the continent. It is evident that a
flock of considerable size must have been blown inland to lose their hearings. A
comparison of these dates indicates that December 16 must have been rather
early for a point so far inland as Iowa, while December 20 would be quite com-
parable; however, the difference is slight. To make quite certain of the identifi-
cation we recently sent the specimen to Mr. Ludlow Griscom, of the Museum of
Comparative Zoology, Cambridge; and we are indebted to Mr. Griscom for veri-
fying our belief that the specimen is lomvia — “a young Brunnich’s Murre of the
year”, as he states. — T. C. Stephens, Sioux City, Iowa.

Another Hybrid Between the Indigo and Lazuli Buntings. — Walter J.
Breckenridge of the University Museum, University of Minnesota, has the credit
of collecting, in northwestern Minnesota on June 26, 1929, the first male hybrid
between the Indigo and Lazuli Buntings (Passerina cyanea x P. amoena) . On
June 1, 1932, the writer took a similar hybrid bird, while working in Cherry
County, Nebraska, under the direction of Fred M. Dille, of Rapid City, South
Dakota. The country bordering the swift Niobrara River in Cherry County is
ideal for the summer home of grosbeaks and huntings. The Indigo Bunting is a
fairly common bird in this region, and here also we found several Lazuli Buntings
settled for the summer. Beautiful Black-headed Grosbeaks, Western Blue Gros-
beaks, and Scarlet Tanagers were found not uncommonly, with a single Cardinal
adding more color to this highly-colored group of species.

240

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

A typical Indigo Bunting song was heard early on the morning of June 1,
and, needing another specimen, the writer located the bird with his glasses and
at once noted the odd markings of the bird, which was taken, later dissection
showing it to be in breeding condition. Both J. M. Linsdale and W. J. Brecken-
ridge, respectively of the University of California and University of Minnesota,
have examined the specimen in question, and evidence points to mixed ancestry
of the bird, with characters of the two species about equally well marked. A fine
description of a hybrid hunting is given in the Occasional Papers Number 3, of
the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1930. — William Young-
worth, Sioux City, Iowa.

The Bohemian Waxwing in Arkansas. — On May 6, 1931, G. A. Winn, a
local banker whom I consider to be a very careful observer, reported the presence
on his farm of four birds that he had watched eating apple buds that morning,
and which answered to the description of the Bohemian Waxwing ( Bombycilla
garrula pallidiceps) . I was satisfied in my own mind at the time that the
birds were Bohemian Waxwings, but was fortunate enough to establish beyond
doubt the truth of this six days later, when on May 12 I watched a flock of ten
of these birds at very close range as they greedily ate the blossoms of a flowering
dogwood.

Only one other record for this bird has been made in Arkansas — from Fayette-
ville in either April or May of 1921, according to the recently published “Birds
of Arkansas” by W. J. Baerg. No other reference to the presence of the species
in the state can be found, although it is probable that many occurrences of the
bird in this section of the state have been overlooked because of the similarity
to the very common Cedar Waxwing, which sometimes appears here in large
numbers, and is a common winter visitor. — J. D. Black, Winslow, Ark.

American Egret in Butler County, Pennsylvania. — Late in the afternoon
of August 11, 1932, Adam M. Barker saw a “white” heron at the far side of a
large water supply reservoir in central Butler County, Pennsylvania. Efforts to
get near the bird were fruitless. The writer accompanied him to the lake to
August 13, in an effort to establish the identity of the bird.

About an hour before sun-down, a large white bird flew over from the upper
end of the lake. We pursued it downstream and had an excellent view of an
American Egret ( Casmerodius alba egretta) feeding in the shallow margin. The
pure white plumage, yellow bill, black legs and the usual midsummer absence of
the interscapular [flumes, observed at seventy-five yards, left no doubt as to the
identity of this summer wanderer from its breeding range.

We visited the lake again on August 20, and were rewarded by seeing the
bird in flight. It came halfway down the lake, circled over our heads and dis-
appeared at the upper end of the reservoir where the territory is heavily wooded.
Later in the day we found it perched on a tree at the water’s edge. A Great
Blue Heron, northern cousin of t he egret, kept it friendly company from its perch
on the limb of a nearby tree. — Sidney K. Eastwood, Pittsburgh. Pa.

American Egret in Elkhart County, Indiana. — 1 wish to announce the
occurrence of the American Egret (Casmerodius albus egretta) in Elkhart County,
Indiana. A single bird was observed August 5, 1932, feeding on Christiana
Creek, two miles north of Elkhart. It was observed at a range of seventy-five
yards, and the black legs and feet were plainly seen. It was last seen on
August 15. — Raymond J. Fleetwood, Elkhart, Ind.

Ornithological Literature

241

ORNITHOLOGICAL LITERATURE

The Birds of Minnesota. By Thomas S. Roberts, M. D. Two vol umes. The

University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1932. Pp. i-xxiii+1-691, i-xv+

1-821. Ninety-two color plates, 606 text illustrations, five maps. Price, $6.00.

The ornithological students who live in the Mississippi Valley will regard this
work with satisfaction and pride, as evidence of the virility and activity of the
middle west in this particular branch of natural history. It is a beautiful piece
of work mechanically, and a most laudable one textually. While “The Birds of
Minnesota’ is limited by title to a single state, yet the list of birds and descrip-
tions will fit very closely also the group of states in the upper Mississippi Valley.
It is the last word on the ornithology of this region, and is likely to remain such
for some time.

Volume One opens with “An Historical and Biographical Review of Orni-
thology in Minnesota” (pp. 1-18), a subject always of importance to students,
and in this case fully and explicitly treated. For our own part we heartily concur
in the high estimate given in these pages to the work of Dr. Fdliott Coues. The
author has been very generous in his acknowledgment of assistance from many
sources. In the chapter devoted to geography the author presents an entertaining
and instructive account of the topography, vegetation, and climate of the state.
Further on are discussed the subjects of life zones, seasonal occurrence, hypo-
thetical species, sight records, game birds and laws pertaining to them, economic
value, enemies, parasites and diseases of birds, songs, bird banding, etc., etc.
On page 109 the author states that “cats have no legal standing”. We had been
led to understand otherwise. It is possible that their status varies in different
states. We hope that they have no legal status, but would advise our readers to
make sure before overtly destroying a trespassing cat that may later be claimed
by a neighbor.

The body of the work is a descriptive catalogue of the birds known to have
occurred within the state. Most ol the specific accounts are presented under the
paragraph headings, general range, Minnesota range, migration dates, nests, food,
field marks, followed by the author’s own copious annotations.

Two hundred and seventy-two pages in Volume Two are devoted to keys and
descriptions — a wonderful source of technical information, fifty-seven pages of
bibliography of Minnesota ornithology probably cover the field pretty thoroughly,
though the author calls it abridged. The usual index is present.

Volume One contains fifty colored plates, each portraying several species.
Volume Two contains forty-two colored plates. Six artists have contiibuted the
plates, viz., Messrs. Allan Brooks, F. L. Jaques, George Miksch Sutton, Louis
Agassiz Fuertes, Walter Alois Weber, and W. J. Breckenridge. The last two
named are younger artists who are now bidding for honors in this field ol woik,
and we think that they are assured of a position of leadership among bird artists
of the time. Mr. Weber’s work on the finches and Mr. Breckenridge’s work on
the sandpipers, just for example, is of a high order in each case. Mi. Jaques
painting of the Great Blue Herons and the cranes is a beautiful thing.

About the only criticism which we feel able to offer is to the effect that the
binding seems a little frail for so heavy a volume, and we wonder how long it
will hold out with ordinary usage. Such a work as this is usually made possible
through philanthropy. And, in this instance a group of Minnesotans, doubtless

242

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

friends of Dr. Roberts, made contributions (approximating a total of $30,000,
according to a rumor which has reached us) toward the publication of this work.
This generosity has made it possible to sell the work at far below cost. We also
understand that the edition is rapidly becoming exhausted, which probably ac-
counts for the advertisement of the set at rather high prices in eastern book
catalogues. — T. C. S.

The Slaughter of the Yellowstone Park Pelicans. Issued by the Emergency
Conservation Committee, New York. September, 1932. Pp. 1-12.

We regret that this pamphlet is issued anonymously, like others recently put
out. Though we profess sympathy with some of the aims of the Committee, we
believe that signed articles will be more effective and less open to criticism. The
present pamphlet exhibits correspondence which, if authentic, shows what has
been taking place and who is responsible. What a shame it is that our national
parks can be controlled in any way by commercial interests! There can be no
doubt that the Yellowstone Park colony of White Pelicans is being “controlled”,
though we are not prepared to claim that it is being reduced below a certain
number from year to year. No doubt the colony would increase if allowed to. We
visited the Molly Islands in 1927. The men of the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries
who were on the ground at that time were very open in their complaint of the
pelicans, and gave the writer to understand that means were being found to keep
the numbers down. The pamphlet suggests that the colony is “controlled” by
destroying the eggs and clubbing the young birds. We believe the Emergency
Committee is doing a great public service in bringing these matters to public
attention, but we can not approve the practice of anonymity in the publications.
— T. C. S.

Physiology of the Temperature of Birds. By S. Prentiss Baldwin and S.
Charles Kendeigh. Sci. Publ. Cleveland Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. Ill, pp. i-x— )—
1-196, pis. I-V, figs. 1-41, and frontispiece. Cleveland, Ohio, 1932.

In this study of the physiology of the temperature of birds an attempt is made
to analyze and determine both the external and internal factors in the control
of body temperature, there being a constant interplay between those two sets of
factors. The authors have devised new and elaborate mechanisms for their pur-
poses. It was found that temperatures could be determined more accurately, as
well as more easily, by thermocouples than by mercury thermometers.

There are many interesting facts connected with the physiology of body tem-
perature of birds. As has long been known in the case of mammals, muscular
activity is an important factor in body temperature. The authors think that if the
body temperature of birds is higher in the summer than in the winter, the fact
is to be explained by greater activity rather than by higher air temperature.
Their data also lead to the conclusion that the incubation temperature is uniform
throughout, that is, there is no increase in the body temperature of the sitting bird
during the latter period of incubation.

The daily rhythm of the body temperature of an incubating bird is repre-
sented by a typical sigmoid curve, which seems to be an exaggeration of the cor-
responding air temperature curve, but is also indicative ol relative metabolic
activity. Moreover, this sigmoid curve of daily temperature may be reversed ex-
perimentally. By keeping birds in the dark during the daytime, thus subduing

Ornithological Literature

243

normal activity, and then transferring them to a well illuminated room at night,
a complete reversal of the temperature curve is effected; which, doubtless, also
affects the entire metabolic routine. In the authors’ repetition of this experiment
they found a tendency toward mortality in the subjects, and suggested that “the
reason for their dying may possibly have been a too precipitous reversal of the
normal periods of activity’. (Pp. 91-92). But if the reasoning here is sound,
why should not mammals be similarly affected? And what bearing does all this
have upon the night shifts of human labor? Well, who knows? (We note here
a typographical error on page 92, line 12, where the figure reference should be
26 instead of 21).

The paper is too long to review thoroughly, but is full of interesting facts,
and is another example of the modern trend in biological research, and, we may
say, in ornithological research. Here is a great field for the young ornithologist
of today. — T. C. S.

Life Histories of North American Gallinaceous Birds, Orders Galliformes

and Columbiformes. By Arthur Cleveland Bent. United States National

Museum Bulletin 162. Pp. i-ix+1-490. Plates 93.

This is the ninth of the excellent bulletins on the life histories of North
American birds published by the United States National Museum, and follows the
same general plan as its predecessors except that the present number combines
the nomenclature of the 1931 Check-List of the American Ornithologists’ Union
with the arrangement of families and species as given in the old (1910) Check-
List. Such a combination seems undesirable and likely to produce confusion.
Once a nomenclature and arrangement of species and families have been adopted
by a nationally recognized body such as the A. 0. U., all serious papers in the
field should make desperate efforts to conform.

A compilation of this kind and size must of necessity deal largely with gen-
eralizations. In this specific case, it is a pleasure to note the many citations of
original literature. The stupendous task of collecting together and organizing
this mass of notes on life histories has been accomplished in an unusually satis-
factory manner. Any criticisms made here should not be allowed to detract from
our debt to Mr. Bent and the National Museum for these studies. The 160 half-
tone illustrations do much to make clear the text. All bird lovers should add this
volume to their library while it is obtainable.

When Bent leaves descriptions of behavior and passes to interpretations, he
passes into a field where his views can not be accepted with such assurance. For
instance, on page 149, he speaks of the female Ruffed Grouse as “teaching them
(the young) to scratch and hunt for insects”, and later, he says, “they are taught
to dust themselves”. It may be questioned that the young are actually taught
these things. On the other hand they may be doing these things from instinct.
The only way to settle a point of this kind is to raise Ruffed Grouse in an in-
cubator and find out whether young so raised dust themselves and scratch or
whether they do not. If, when they are raised in an incubator, they scratch and
dust themselves, they certainly do this without being taught by their mother.
Similar interpretations scattered throughout the paper are subject to the same
type of criticism. — Jesse M. Shaver.

244

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

The Distribution of Bird-Life in Guatemala. A Contribution to a Study
of the Origin of Central American Bird-Life. By Ludlow Griscom. Bull.
Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., Vol. LXIV, pp. 1-430. New York, 1932.

This excellent study is dedicated to the memory of Jonathan Dwight, Jr., be-
cause Dr. Dwight had been deeply interested in the bird life of Central America,
and upon whose collections the present report is chiefly based. Without attempt-
ing to describe the paper in detail we may say that it deals with the. history of
the ornithology of the region, with climate, physiography, life zones, and finally,
with the distributional list of birds. The work shows all the evidence of being an
accurate and authoritative treatise, and will be of great value to all who are con-
cerned with the bird life of Central America. — T. C. S.

The Audubon Yearbook (Indiana) for 1932. Published by the Indiana Audu-
bon Society, Indianapolis, 1932. Pp. 1-100. Price, $1.00 (Miss Margaret R.
Knox, Sec.-Treas., 4030 Park Ave., Indianapolis, Ind.).

We have learned to look for interesting material within the covers of this
annual, and the present one is no exception to the rule. The volume is dedicated
to Dr. Amos William Butler, who might be called the Father of Indiana Orni-
thology, because he began writing on Indiana birds away back in the ’80's, and
has never since lost his interest in this pursuit; and, in 1897, he published a com-
plete treatise on the birds of Indiana, which has not been superceded as yet. The
portrait of Dr. Butler is presented as a frontispiece, and is followed by a biography
prepared by the late Dr. Barton W. Evermann, formerly of Indiana. There is also
attached a complete bibliography of Dr. Butler’s writings up to date. In connec-
tion with a short paper by Mr. O. M. Schantz on the sand dunes there is printed
a list of the birds of that region. Because of the popularity of the Indiana dunes
this list might well he republished sometime in annotated form. Dr. Earl Brooks
continues his ana on the Robin, including such topics as unusual nest sites, vari-
ous psychological traits, intoxication, bigamy, bathing, number of broods, nest
parasitism, albinism, melanism, etc. Dr. Brooks' address is Noblesville, Ind. Mr.
George Zebrowski presents a very full and instructive paper on the parasites
(internal and external) of birds. — T. C. S.

Biographical Memoir of Robert Ridgway, 1850-1929. By Alexander Wetmore.
Biographical Memoirs, Vol. XV, Nat. Acad. Sci, 1932, pp. 55-101. Washing-
ton, D. C.

We find here the most important biography of Mr. Ridgway which has thus
far appeared, next to the one by Mr. Harry Harris, published in the Condor
(January, 1928). We did not realize until we checked up at this time, that no
memorial sketch has thus far appeared in the Auk. A complete bibliography of
Mr. Ridgway’s work is given; and one may he surprised to find how interesting a
personal bibliography can be. — T. C. S.

The Need for Studies in Bird Control in California. By W. L. McAtee.
Month. Bull. Calif. Dept. Agric., XXI, April-May-June, 1932, pp. 269-286.

It seems strange that so many birds become pests in California. In the pres-
ent paper birds classified as pests (under certain circumstances in California)
include ducks, coots, quail, band-tailed pigeons, horned larks, blackbirds, gold-
finches, English sparrows and linnets, Gambel’s sparrows, and possibly one or two
Others. On page 279 the report states that “a survey of 53 orchards has just been

Ornithological Literature

245

completed which shows an average loss of 10 per cent for 1930”. This is about
the same estimate of loss that is claimed from insects. So, economically they
would not be any worse off if they killed all the birds and kept the insects. The
claims made by fruit growers and others are startling enough; but all such testi-
mony may be assumed to be prejudiced, and perhaps exaggerated — and it may
only lie published as a justification for practices. Action should be based wholly
upon the reports of the Survey’s men, or others without prejudice. The author
concludes with an argument for the use of poison as the method of control.
Much effort is being made to show that the poison method is selective and dis-
criminative, that the harmful species and individuals only will take the poison.
— T. C. S.

Progress Report of the Ruffed Grouse Investigation. By Gardiner Bump,
F. C. Edminster, Jr., Robert Darrow, W. C. Ritter, and A. A. Allen. Re-
printed from the 21st Annual Report, for 1931, Conservation Dep’t, Albany,
N. Y„ 1932. Pp. 1-19.

Much attention is being given nowadays to the problems of all species of
game birds. Many states are supporting scientific investigation on the habits and
requirements of certain species especially desired for hunting purposes. One use-
ful table in this paper shows the nature of the food of the Ruffed Grouse month
by month throughout the year; percentages are not given, however. From observa-
tions at the disposal of the authors it is concluded that grouse abundance fluctu-
ates on a ten-year cycle. — T. C. S.

Ornithology of the Oneida Lake Region: with Reference to the Late
Spring and Summer Seasons. By Dayton Stoner. Roosevelt Wild Life An-
nals, Vol. 2, Nos. 3-4, January, 1932, pp. 267-764, col. pis. 1-2, figs. 117-234.
One is likely to expect this report to deal chiefly with local distribution, but,
as a matter of fact, one finds that more attention is paid to the habits of the
various species treated; and for this reason the paper will have a general appeal.
Two colored plates are by Sawyer, whose skill in placing many small figures on
one plate is well known. — T. C. S.

Birds Collected in Cuba and Haiti by the Parish-Smitiisonian Expedition
of 1930. By Alexander Wetmore. Proc. LI. S. Nat. Mus., Vol. 81, Art. 2,
pp. 1-40, pis. 1-7. Washington, 1932.

The expedition went by ship among various small islands adjacent to Cuba
and Haiti, and the paper is a report on the birds collected, including land birds.
An outline map of the territory covered would have been a great convenience to
the reader. — T. C. S.

Progress Report of Ohio Upland Game Bird Research. By Lawrence E.
Hicks. Reprinted from Frans. 18th Airier. Game Conf., 1931, pp. 1-5.

The matter presented here will be of interest to all who are engaged in
game management. — T. C. S.

Bulletin of the Essex County Ornithological Club of Massachusetts.
Salem, 1931. Pp. 1-71. Price, 50 cents (S. Gilbert Emilio, Treasurer, 7
Winter St., Salem, Mass.).

The principal paper in this issue of this Bulletin is a revised “List of the
Birds of Essex County, Massachusetts”, which includes 336 forms, with a supple-
mentary list of twenty-nine forms. This is a splendid way to publish local lists.
A dozen other articles of interest are included. — T. C. S.

246

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

Research and Education in the National Parks. By Harold C. Bryant and
Wallace W. Atwood, jr. Issued by the National Park Service, Washington,
D. C , 1932. Pp. i-vi+1-66.

A splendidly illustrated pamphlet describing the educational work attempted
by the Government in the Parks, and giving a history of the development of this
work. A useful bibliography is appended. — T. C. S.

A Revised List of the Birds of Ohio. Compiled by Milton B. Trautman. Bull.
Bureau Sci. Research, Div. of Conservation, Ohio Dep't of Agric., Vol. I,
No. 3, April, 1932, pp. 1-16.

A rather hastily edited, but modernized, list of birds for the state, which
will be very useful to all Ohio bird students. — T .C. S.

Policies of the Bureau of Biological Survey Relative to the Control of
Injurious Birds. Prepared under direction of Paul G. Redington and W. L.
McAtee. Misc. Publ. No. 145, U. S Dept. Agric., Washington, D. C., 1932.
It is stated herein that the general policy of the Survey is “to hold bird-
control work to a minimum”. There follows a brief discussion of the various
kinds of birds which may become injurious. The Biological Survey is often placed
in a difficult position between conflicting demands. We hope that its practices
will always tally with its declarations of policy. — T. C. S.

Quail Winter Food and Cover. By Paul L. Errington. Reprinted from Amer.
Game, three numbers from July to December, 1931.

This reprint combines three instalments as originally published. It is a full
official report of the Wisconsin Quail Investigation during the winter of 1930-31.
Many interesting facts on the ecology of the Bob-white are here presented. The
gist of it all is that these birds must have both food and shelter — the lack of
either means disaster. — T. C. S.

Die Vogel Nordostgronlands zwischen 73° 00' uno 75° 30' N Br. By Bernt
Lpppenthin, of Copenhagen. C. A. Reitzel’s Press, Copenhagen, 1932. Price,
6 Kroner.

During the summer of 1930 the Danish Godthaab Expedition spent six weeks
on the east coast of Greenland. The author of this volume, who was Zoologist
for the Expedition, devoted most of his time to the birds, and obtained first-hand
information on the birds between 73° 30' and 74° 20', North; but with informa-
tion gained from the inhabitants he was able to report on the range indicated in
the title. The volume contains a concise story of the movements of the Expedition
a discussion of the forty species of birds found, and an adequate summary of
both these parts in English. The text is supplemented with twenty-six text figures
and one insert map. — Henry C. Rath.

Avifauna Aegyptiaca. Natatores, Steganopodes, Urinatores. By Alexander
Koenig, of Bonn. Journ. f. Ornith., Special Number, 1932. Pp. 1-237.

The present one is the final instalment in a series, the first of which was com-
pleted in 1905. The title is slightly at fault, the author suggests, since, with two
exceptions, the work deals only with the birds of the Nile Valley. The two ex-
ceptions refer to the birds of the Fayum Oasis and those of Sinai. Were it not
for these exceptions a more appropriate title, he thinks, would have been, Avi-
fauna Nilotica Aegyptiaca. Only genera and species are described. A total of

Ornithological Literature

247

257 species, with many additional subspecies, are described in the work ; while 38
species aie discussed in the present instalment. Because human influence and
natural events are producing rapid changes in the environment, the author re-
minds the reader that the picture which he here presents can he regarded only
as a temporary one. — Henry C. Ratii.

Ei. 1 roubadour. 1 he Iexas Mockingbird. By R. A. Selle. Houston, Texas
(1236 Rutland St.), 1932. Pp. 1-32.

Five delightful essays on the Mockingbird, all short, make this little booklet
a prized possession. Anyone will enjoy this eulogy of the chosen bird of the
state of Texas. — T. C. S.

Foods of Some Predatory Fur-Bearing Animals in Michigan. By Ned Dear-
born. Bull. No. 1, School of Forestry and Conservation, Univ. Mich., Ann
Arbor, Mich., 1932. Pp. 1-52, figs. 8, maps 10, charts 22. Price, 25 cents.
This paper, which deals with fur rather than feathers, is the tirst of a pro-
posed series of bulletins to be issued by the Michigan School of Forestry and
Conservation. Special attention has been given to the food of a selected list of
mammals; and, of course, birds are found listed in these food charts in many
cases. — T. C. S.

The Migrant for June contains an article by Mr. A. F. Ganier on the eagles
found in Tennessee reprinted from the Journal of the Tennessee Academy of
Sciences for April, 1931. Mr. Bruce P. Tyler also tells of a pair of House Wrens
which destroyed two nests (with contents) of the Bewick’s Wren and drove
them away.

The Chickadee, organ of the Forbush Bird Club, of Worcester, Mass., con-
tinues to reach our desk regularly. It carries much information of general in-
terest, and should be very suggestive to the editors of other local club publica-
tions.. The March number gives a list of trees, shrubs, and vines arranged accord-
ing to the season (summer, autumn, winter, spring) in which their fruits are
available as bird food. The July number gives a complete list of ornithological
books in the local public library, with the call number for each one. This is a
very fine list, but it should contain the Condor and Wilson Bulletin. Other
numbers are so full of facts and suggestions that enumeration would be quite
impossible.

The St. Louis Bird Club issued two numbers (May and June) of a mimeo-
graphed periodical, the name of which was to be decided later. The pages serve
to record the programs and field studies, and other matters of interest.

Bird banding periodicals. Bird Banding Notes is issued by the U. S. Bureau
of Biological Survey. Since our last report the numbers for December ,1931,
and May, 1932, have been issued. We have received News from the Bird Banders
for October, 1931, January, April, and July, 1932; and also Inland Bird Banding
News for March, June, and September, 1932.

The Raven has not missed an issue so far this year. This mimeographed
Bulletin seems to restrict its space to actual news in the bird world as reported
by the various active bird students in the state. The June issue presents an ac-
count of a three-day sojourn of a party of four in the Dismal Swamp.

248

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

The Gull for October reprints from the Game Breeder some interesting dis-
cussion on the question of how the Wood Duck's young leave the nest. The gist
of it is that the young leave the nest, and are returned to the nest, on the back
of the old bird. The author asserts that he has witnessed the performances.

The International Cat Society (501 Fifth Ave., N. Y.) issues from time to
time a mimeographed bulletin which gives information on the harm done by these
animals and on the work being done to curb the menace. Up to the present
time ten bulletins have been issued.

Several numbers of the Flicker have arrived since last noticed. The second
number for 1932 contains a halftone reproduction of a very excellent photograph
of a Great Horned Owl at the nest.

For some years Prof. O. A. Stevens, of the North Dakota Agricultural Col-
lege, has been issuing in mimeographed form North Dakota Bird Notes. This
periodical has been issued with considerable regularity for a number of years, and
contains a great amount of local ornithology.

It has been announced that the Letter of Information of the Nebraska Orni-
thologists’ Union is to be discontinued at the end of this year, to he succeeded by
a printed 16-page quarterly.

COMMUNICATIONS

Ridgway’s Birds of North and Middle America
With regard to an editorial on Mr. Robert Ridgway’s great series on the
Birds of North and Middle America in the last number of the Wilson Bulletin
(Vol. 44, September, 1932, p. 179) there seems to be some misunderstanding as to
the circumstances attending the progress of this publication.

At the time of his death Mr. Ridgway was occupied mainly with work on the
synonymy and on the diagnoses for the higher groups for volumes 9 and 10 of this
work. Neither of these volumes was completed and we estimate that approxi-
mately 50 per cent or less of the work had been finished on them. Due to his fail
ing health Mr. Ridgway did not feel that he could come to Washington to carry
out the necessary work to complete the accounts of the various species and sub-
species, and it was not practical for him to arrange to do this elsewhere. As a
matter of fact Mr. Ridgway wished to give up the task some time before his death
and continued only at my earnest solicitation, as it was my desire to have as much
of his rich store of knowledge preserved on paper as possible.

The work of completion of these two volumes has been undertaken by Dr.
Herbert Friedmann, U. S. National Museum, who follows Mr. Ridgway as curator
of birds. While it is intended to complete the work as promptly as possible neces-
sarily some time must elapse before the next volume is ready as there is much to
be done upon it.

Alexander Wetmore,

U. S. National Museum, Washington, D. C.

Index

249

INDEX FOR VOLUME XLIV, 1932

Compiled by R. D. Hissong

Bailey, Alfred M., A Starling roost in the Chicago area, 40

Bailey, Harold H., Some corrections and additions to the new A. 0. U. Check-
List, 186-188

Black, J. D., A winter Robin roost in Arkansas, 13-19

The record of the Starling in Kansas, 235

The Bohemian Waxwing in Arkansas, 240

Blincoe, Benjamin J., Wilson's Snipe feeding in open water, 233
Breitenbach, E. L., Woodcocks and Wood Ducks in Washington County, Iowa, 181
Brooks, Maurice, Nesting of Prairie Warbler two years in identical location, 233
Burns, Frank L., Charles W. and Titian R. Peale and the ornithological section
of the old Philadelphia museum, 23-35

Byrens, Oscar M., A Snow Bunting handed in Michigan shot in Greenland, 38
Campbell, Louis W., A large flock of Bank Swallows near Toledo, Ohio, 118
Cook, Mrs. Horace P., Some brief bird notes from Indiana, 39

The Blue-gray Gnatcatcher in Indiana, 45

An early arrival of the Bobolink in Indiana, 115

— A late date for the Chimney Swift in Indiana, 180

Dumont, Philip A., Notes from Central Iowa, 170-177

American Egret in Lake County, Indiana, 236

Some Iowa birds in a Des Moines collection, 236-237

Eastwood, Sidney K., Notes on the feeding of the Least Bittern, 42

American Egret in Butler County, Pennsylvania, 240

Edwards, Helen M., A Cardinal’s odd way of catching ants, 235
Errington, Paul L., Great Horned Owls dying in the wild from diseases, 180

An encounter between a Cooper’s Hawk and a Horned Owl, 189

Studies on the behavior of the Great Horned Owl, 212-220

Felton, W. R., A large fall migration of the While Pelican, 41
Fleetwood, Raymond J., American Egret in Elkhart County, Indiana, 240
Ford, Edward R., Re-use of nest material, 189
Ganier, A. F., Nesting of the Bald Eagle, 3-9

Grange, Wallace B., A large flock of Wood Ibises in Harrison County, Iowa, 43

Guthrie, J. E., Snakes versus birds; birds versus snakes, 88-113

Hagar, Mrs. Jack, Double and triple nests of the Red-winged Blackbird, 184

Henderson, Grant, Unusual nesting site of Chimney Swifts, 45

The chipmunk as an enemy of birds, 184

Hicks, Lawrence E., The Snowy Owl invasion of Ohio in 1930-31, 221-226
Johnson, R. G., A New York Ring-necked Pheasant census, 183
Kalmbach, E. R., Winter Starling roosts of Washington, 65-75

Kalter, Louis B., Florida Gallinule eats goldfish, 38

Influence of an Osprey on Bronzed Crackles and Pied-billed Grebes, 42

Kendeigh, S. Charles, A study of Merriam’s temperature laws, 129-143
Larrabee, A. P., The Barn Owl nesting in southeastern South Dakota, 38
Leopold, Aldo, A flight of Franklin’s Gulls in northwestern Iowa, 116
Lewis, John B., Further comment on the nesting of the Blue-gray Gnatcatcher, 115
Lillie, Frank R., The physiology of feather pattern, 193-211.

Lloyd, C. K., The Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher moves its nest, 185
Lundquist, Arthur, The Cormorants of South Dakota, 227-230
Main, John S., The influence of temperature on migration, 10-12

250

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

Mayfield, George R., The Red-cockaded Woodpecker in Grundy County, Ten-
nessee, 44

Philadelphia Vireo near Nashville, Tennessee, 116

McGuire, N. M., A Red-bellied Woodpecker robs a Sapsucker, 39
Membership roll, 190-192

Morse, Margarette E., Red Crossbills at Viroqua, Wisconsin, 38
Murray, J. J., An experiment with nesting Purple Grackles, 182
Nauman, E. D., The Red-headed Woodpecker as a mouser, 44
Ornithological Literature, 119-128, 241-248

Over, William H. and Craig S. Thoms, Additional bird records for South Dakota,
47-49

Pellett, Frank C., White-breasted Nuthatches occupy a nest box, 43
Roads, Katie M., Some notes on birds for 1930, 42
Ground-nesting birds, 116

The nesting behavior of a pair of mockingbirds, 188

Roberts, F. L. R., Two Iowa duck records, 180

Shelford, Victor E., Life zones, modern ecology, and the failure of temperature
summing, 144-157

Shirling, A. E., Cedar Waxwings feeding on ash flower stamens, 183
Smith, George A., A Spotted Sandpiper incubates five eggs, 38
Stephens, T. C., Brunnich’s Murre in Iowa, 239
Stevens, 0. A., Bank Swallows killed by automobiles, 39

Swenk, Myron H., The Swallow-tailed Kite in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, 182
Taber, William B., Curvature of wing and soaring flight, 19-22

Curvature of wing and flapping flight, 75-78

Taylor, Mrs. H. J., Snow and Goss, the pioneers in Kansas Ornithology, 158-169

Thoms, Craig S., Additional bird records for South Dakota, 47-49

Tomkins, Ivan R., Some observations on the Eastern W il let at nesting time, 46

Worthington's Marsh Wren in the vicinity of Savannah, Georgia, 40

Van Tyne, Josselyn, The Orange-crowned Warbler at Ann Arbor, Michigan, 234
Watterson, William H., The 1931 fall migration at Cleveland’s public square, 117
Wetmore, Alexander, The former occurrence of the Mississippi Kite in Ohio, 118
Wood, Harold B., The Great Blue Heron flops on its prey, 185
Wood, Merrill, New birds for State College, Pennsylvania, 238-239
Wood, Norman A., Harlan’s Hawk, 78-87.

Youngworth, William, Notes on the nesting of the Bronzed Grackle and Say’s
Phoebe, 41

Recent bird notes from southern South Dakota, 43

Recent changes in South Dakota bird life, 181

The Yellow-throated Vireo in South Dakota, 233

Another hybrid between the Indigo and Lazuli Buntings, 239

Acridotheres gingianus, 90
Actitis macularia, 38, 186
Agelaius, 187

phoeniceus, 106
Albatross, 98, 101

Ammodramus savannarum australis, 29
Ammospiza caudacuta nelsoni, 177
macgillivraii, 188
maritima shannoni, 187
Ampelis cedrorum, 183
Anas boschas, 101
Anhinga anhinga, 26, 27, 101

Aphelocoma californica, 104
coerulescens, 187
Aquila chrysaetos, 103
Ardea caerulea, 101
egretta, 101
herodias, 98, 101, 185
rufa, 101

tricolor ruficollis, 101
virescens, 101, 105
Arenaria interpres morinella, 172
Asio flanuneus, 28
wilsonianus, 28

Index

251

Astur atricapillus, 28, 236
Bartramia longicauda, 173
Raldpate, 239
Bataleur, 103

Bishop bird. Black-bellied, 106
Bittern, 100

American, 89, 98, 101, 186
Least, 42, 238
Blackbird, 108
Brewer’s, 126
Crow, 107

Red-winged, 10, 11, 74, 92, 106,
107, 108, 126, 184, 187
Bluebird, 10, 12, 39, 43, 161
Bobolink, 93, 108, 115
Bob-white, 92, 106, 118, 225
Bombycilla cedrorum, 29, 176
garrula pallidiceps, 240
Bonasa umbellus, 237
Botaurus lentiginosus, 98, 101, 186
Branta canadensis hutchinsi, 236
Brunnich’s Murre, 239
Bubo virginianus occidentalis, 237
v. virginianus, 212-220, 237
Bucorax cafer, 98, 104
Bunting, snow, 38, 39, 188
Indigo x Lazuli, 239
Buteo albicaudatus sennetti, 103
borealis borealis, 102
borealis calurus, 103
b. harlani, 78-87, 237
b. krideri, 103
lagopus s.-johannis, 237
lineatus, 103
1. extimus, 186
platypterus, 172
regalis, 172
swainsoni, 103, 186
vulgaris, 91, 102, 105
Butorides virescens, 185
Buzzard, 91, 98, 99, 102, 105
Turkey, 102

Campephilus principalis, 28
Camptorhynchus labradorius, 27
Canvasback, 27, 171, 238
Capella gallinago delicata, 233
Cardinal, 42, 55, 106, 184, 235
Gray-tailed, 90

Cardinalis cardinalis, see Richmondena
Casmerodius albus egretta, 47, 236
Cassadix mexicanus major, 29
Cat, 18-19

Catbird, 42, 92, 106, 109, 187
Cathartes aura, 102

Catoptrophorus semipalmatus inomatus,

47

s. semipalmatus, 46
Certhia familiaris americana, 30

Chaetura pelagica, 45, 180
Charadrius hiaticula, 28
ntelodia, 28
semipalmatus, 28
Chat, Yellow-breasted, 39, 57
Chaulelasmus streperus, 171
Chauna cristata, 101
Chen caerulescens, 236
hyperborea, 236
Chewink, 108
Chickadee, 43, 89

Black-capped, 187

Chicken, Domestic, 97, 102, 106, 107
Greater Prairie, 237
Prairie, 106, 118

Chlidonias nigra surinamensis, 173
Chondestes grammacus, 43
Chordeiles minor, 42
Circaetus gallicus, 103
Circus hudsonius, 186
Coccyzus americanus, 28, 174
erythropthalmus, 28, 174, 187
Colinus virginianus, 106
Columba leucocephala, 186
squamosa, 186
Colymbus auritus, 170, 236
grisegena holboelli, 170
nigricollis californicus, 236
Compsothlypis americana pusilla, 48
Conuropsis carolinensis, 28
Coot, American, 11
Coracias, 104
Coragyps atratus, 28
Cormorant, 8

Double-crested, 4. 56, 181, 227-230
236

Florida, 101

Corvulture albicollis, 104
Corvus brachyrhynchos, 104
corax principalis, 29
scapulatus, 104

Coturnicops noveboracensis, 237
Cowbird, 97, 104, 108, 110, 187
Crane, Sandhill, 98, 102
Whooping, 26, 28, 102
Crocethia alba, 173
C-rossl dll, Bendire’s, 49
Red, 38

Crow, 74, 99, 100, 104, 118, 218
Carrion, 28
Pied, 104

Cuckoo, Black-billed, 28, 174, 187
Carolina, 28
Yellow-billed, 53, 174
Curlew, American, 28
European, 28

Cyanocitta woodhouseii, 107
Dacelo gigas, 98, 104

252

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

Dafila acuta tzitzihoa, 171
Dendrocygna fulva, 180
Dendroica caerulea, 29, 49
caerulescens, 48
discolor, 233
discolor collinsi, 187
magnolia, 29
pi nus, 49
trigrina, 48
virens, 49

Doliclionyx oryzivorus, 115
Dove, Blue-headed Quail, 186
Eastern Mourning, 115
Ground, 124
Mourning, 55
Ringed Turtle, 186
Droma novae-hollandiae, 102
Dryobates borealis, 44
Duck, 8, 101, 180, 181, 227

Argentine Black-beaded, 124
Black, 11, 126
European Ruddy, 124
Fulvous Tree, 180
Harlequin, 26
Labrador, 26

Lesser Scaup, 118, 172, 238
Pied, 27

Ring-necked, 118, 238
Ruddy, 26, 171, 172
Wood, 118, 182, 238
Dumetella carolinensis, 42, 187
Eagle, 88, 98

Bald, 3-9, 30, 51, 103
Golden, 53, 103
Harrier, 97, 103
Jean le blanc, 103
Serpent, 97, 103
Ectopistes migratorius, 28
Egret, 56

American, 47, 101, 236, 240
Reddish, 101
Snowy, 57, 101
Eider, American, 26

Elanoides forrtcatus, 28, 102, 182, 236
Elanus melanopterus, 102
Empidonax virescens, 28, 48, 175
Emu, 102

Enemies of Birds, 88-113, 184
Ereunetes mauri, 47
pusillus, 173

Erismatura jamaicensis rubida, 27, 171
Eurostomus, 104
Falco mexicanus, 237

peregrinus anatum, 172
p. pealei, 35
sparverius paulus, 186
s. sparverius, 103, 186
Falcon, Black-winged, 102
Prairie, 237
Swallow-tailed, 28

Finch, Gray-crowned Rosy, 49
Hepburn’s Rosy, 49
House, 107
Fish Crow, 238
Flamingo, 26, 27
Flicker, 43, 94, 107, 118, 128, 219
Flight, 19-22, 75-78
Florida caerulea, 47
Flycatcher, Acadian, 48, 175
Alder, 175
Arizona Crested, 90
Crested, 43, 189
Least, 175

Mexican Crested, 90
Northern Crested, 89, 175
Olive-colored, 28
Olive-sided, 175
White-eyed, 29
Yellow-bellied, 175
Fregata magnificens, 186
Frigate-bird, 98, 101
Gadwall, 171, 172
Gallinago delicata, 28
Gallinula chloropus cachinnans, 38
Gallinule, Florida, 38, 124
Purple, 26
Callus gallus, 102
Geococcyx californianus, 90
Gnatcatcher, Blue-gray, 45, 48, 54, 115,
185, 189, 238
Codwit, Marbled, 181
Golden-eye, 11
Goose, Blue, 56, 236
Greater Snow, 47
Hutchins’s, 236
Lesser Snow, 236
Goshawk, Eastern, 236
Grackle, 41, 118

Boat-tailed, 29, 74, 238
Bronzed, 10, 12, 41, 42, 115
Purple, 182
Gracula barita, 29
Grebe, American Eared, 236
Eared, 181
Holboell’s, 170, 181
Horned, 170, 236
Pied-billed, 42
Western, 181

Grosbeak, Eastern Blue, 90
Eastern Evening, 238
Canadian Pine, 238
Rocky Mountain, 43
Rose-breasted, 42, 117, 174
Western Blue, 43, 90
Grouse, 219

Eastern Ruffed, 237
Pinnated, 28
Ruffed, 118

Grus americana, 28, 102
canadensis tabida, 98
mexicana, 102

Index

253

Guara alba, 47, 101
rubra, 27
Guinea Fowl, 107
Guiraca c. caerulea, 90
c. interfusca, 43, 90
Gull, Bonaparte’s, 47, 173, 237
Franklin’s, 116, 186, 237
Herring, 11, 117, 237
Ring-billed, 181, 227, 237
Haematopus ostralegus, 28
palliatus, 28
Halcyon, 98, 104
Haliaeetus leucocephalus, 3, 103
Harrier, Jardine’s, 103
Hawk, 88, 89, 97, 98, 103, 107, 126
Black-cap, 28
Broad-winged, 124, 172
Cooper’s, 189
Duck, 118, 172
Ferruginous Rough-leg, 172
Harlan’s, 78-87, 237
Harrier, 103

Insular Red-shouldered, 186
Krider’s, 103
Little Sparrow, 186
Marsh, 100, 102, 186
Red-shouldered, 99, 103, 189
Red-tailed, 18, 79, 100, 102, 218
Rough-legged, 237, 238
Sharp-shinned, 102
Sparrow, 43, 99, 103, 117
Swainson’s, 103, 124, 186
Western Red-tailed, 80, 83, 103
White-tailed, 103
Hedymeles ludovicianus, 42
melanocephalus papago, 43
Helotarsus ecaudatus, 103
Heron. 56, 89, 97, 100

Black-crowned Night, 47, 101, 238
Great Blue, 4. 98, 101, 185
Green, 101, 105, 185
Little Blue, 47, 101
Louisiana, 101
Yellow-crowned Night, 102
Hornbill, Ground, 98, 104
Hummingbird, Broad-tailed, 48
Ruby-throated, 45, 115, 189
Hylocichla, 30

fuscescens salicicolus, 176
guttata faxoni, 42
ustidata swainsoni, 42
Ibis, 88, 101

Egyptian, 101
Glossy, 101, 127
Scarlet, 26, 27
White, 47, 101
White-faced Glossy, 127
Wood, 43, 56, 101
Icterus galbula, 187
spurius, 29

Ictinia mississippiensis, 118
Ixobrychus exilis, 42
Jacana, Mexican, 186

spinosa gymnostoma, 186
Jay, Blue, 44, 106, 239
California, 104
Florida, 187
Florida Blue, 106
Woodhouse, 107
Killdeer, 10, 12
Kingbird, 26
Eastern, 175
Kingfisher, 88, 98
Belted Bush, 104
Kinglet, Golden-crowned, 117
Ruby-crowned, 117
Kite, 97, 102

Mississippi, 102, 118
Swallow-tailed, 26, 102, 118, 182,
236

Lanius borealis, 29, 104

ludovicianus excubitorides, 29, 104
1. ludovicianus, 104
1. migrans, 105
L ark, Hoyt’s Horned, 48
Prairie Horned, 128
Larus argentatus smithsonianus, 237
delawarensis, 237
Philadelphia, 173, 237
pipixcan, 116, 186, 237
Laughing Jackass, 98, 104
Leucosticte tephrocotis littoralis, 49
t. tephrocotis, 49
Lophodytes cucullatus, 171, 236
Loxia curvirostra bendirei, 49
c. pusilla, 29, 38
rostra forficato, 29
Magpie, 104

Mallard, 11, 97. 101, 112, 118, 171, 172.
180

Man-o-war-bird, 186
Martin, Purple, 41, 43
Meadowlark, 10, 12, 89, 106, 219
Western, 93

Melanerpes erythrocenhalus, 44
Melanitta deglandi, 47
Meleagris, 102

gallopavo si 1 vest r i s. 28
Melospiza georgiana, 49
melodia, 29, 1 16
Merganser, 11, 236

American, 171, 172, 238
Hooded, 171, 172, 236
Mergus merganser americanus, 171, 236
Migration, 10-12, 117
Mimus polyglottos, 176, 188
Mockingbird, 55, 128, 170, 176, 188,238
Molothrus ater ater, 104, 187
Muscicapa subviridus, 28
Mycteria americana, 43, 101

254

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

Myiarchus c. cinerascens, 90
crinitus boreus, 48, 89
c. crinitus, 90
tyrannulus magister, 90
t. nelsoni, 90
Myiochanes virens, 28
Mynah, Bank, 90
Nighthawk, 42
Numenius americanus, 28
arquata, 28

Nuthatch, Rocky Mountain, 48
White-breasted, 43
Nuttallornis mesoleucus, 175
Nyctanassa violaceus, 102
Nyctea nyctea, 221-226, 237
Nycticorax nycticorax naevius, 101
Nyroca valisineria, 27, 171
Oidemia americana, 27
Old-squaw, 26, 239
Oporornis agilis, 49
formosus, 187
Philadelphia, 177
Oriole, 91

Baltimore, 29, 187
Oriolus spurius, 29
Osprey, 42, 237
Otocoris alpestris hoyti, 48
a. praticola, 124
Otus asio asio, 104
Ouzel, Water, 128
Oven-bird, 26, 43
Owl, 28, 96, 98, 104, 112, 126
Barn, 38, 238

Barred, 18, 118, 180, 212, 217
Burrowing, 104

Great Horned, 18, 107, 180, 189,
212-220, 237
Long-eared, 28, 238
Montana Horned, 237
Screech, 43, 104, 180, 216
Snowy, 221-226, 237
Western Burrowing, 174
Oyster-catcher, 28
European, 26
Pied, 28

Pandion haliaetus carolinensis, 42, 237
Paroquet, Carolina, 28
Partridge, Hungarian, 225
Passer domesticus, 29, 90, 140
Passerculus sandwichensis savanna, 177
Passerina cyanea x P. amoena, 239
Pelecanus erythrorynchos, 27, 236
Pelican, 56
Brown, 56
White, 41, 236

Pelidna alpina sakhalina, 173
Penthestes atricapillus, 187
carolinensis, 187

Petrochelidon albifrons, 175
lunifrons, 43
Pewee, Wood, 175, 189
Phalacrocorax auritus, 227-230, 236
auritus floridanus, 101
Phalarope, Red, 48
Phalaropus fulicarius, 48
Pheasant, Ring-necked, 183, 225, 238
Phoebe, 46

Eastern, 175, 187
Say’s, 41

Phoenicopterus ruber, 27
Pica pica hudsonia, 104
Pigeon, 108

Passenger, 28, 118, 127
Scaled, 186
White-crowned, 186
Pintail, 11, 171, 172, 180
Pipilo erythropthalmus, 43, 116
maculatus arcticus, 43
Piranga erythromelas, 29
rubra, 29

Pisobia bairdi, 173
fuscicollis, 47, 173
melanotos, 173
minutilla, 173

Planesticus migratorius, 105 (See
Turdus)

Plectrophenax nivalis, 188
Plegadis autumnalis, 101
Plover, Ringed, 28
Upland, 173, 181
Podilymbus podiceps, 42
Polioptila caerulea, 45, 48, 115, 185
Polyboroides, 103
Protonotaria citrea, 48
Ptarmigan, 221
Pyromelana nigriventris, 106
Quail, 94, 105, 106, 107, 108
Quiscalus, 118

quiscula aeneus, 41, 42
Quisculus quiscula, 182
Rail, 108

Virginia, 102
Yellow, 237

Rallus virginianus, 102
Raven, 26, 98, 118
White-necked, 104
Red-head, 27
Redstart, 117

Richmondena cardinalis canicauda, 90,
106, 235

c. cardinalis, 42, 184
Ringhals, 104
Riparia riparia, 118
Road-runner, 90, 98, 104

Index

255

Robin, 10, 12, 13-19, 39, 40, 44, 54, 97,
99, 105, 107, 108, 115, 161, 176
Brown-backed Indian, 90
Black-backed Indian, 90
Rollers, 104
Rynchops nigra, 55
Salpinctes obsoletus, 43
Sanderling, 173
Sandpiper, Baird’s, 173
Eastern Solitary, 173
Least, 173
Pectoral, 173, 233
Red-backed, 173
Semipalmated, 173
Spotted, 38, 186
Western, 47
White-rumped, 47, 173
Sapsucker, Yellow-bellied, 39, 117
Sayornis phoebe, 46, 187
sayus, 41
Scoter, 27

American, 27
White-winged, 47
Screamer, Crested, 101
Secretary Bird, 99, 103
Seiurus aurocapillus, 43

noveboracensis notabilis, 177
motacilla, 30

Selaspborus platycercus, 48
Serpentarius reptilivorus, 99
secretarius, 99, 103
Shoveller, 172
Shrike, 26, 97, 98, 105
Loggerhead, 104
Migrant, 105
Northern, 104, 238
White-rumped, 104
Siskin, Pine, 32, 187
Sitta carolinensis nelsoni, 48
Skimmer, Black, 55
Smew, 26
Snake, 88-113, 128
Snake-bird, 101, 104, 160
Snake-crane, 101
Snipe, English, 28
Wilson’s, 233

Solitaire, Townsend’s, 108
Sparrow, Chipping, 29, 55, 108
Clay-colored, 181
Eastern Lark, 239
Eastern Savannah, 177
Eastern Song, 116
English, 41, 74, 90, 94, 107, 108,
140, 161, 162, 212, 220
European Tree, 53
Field, 105
Lark, 43
Lincoln’s, 239
Nelson’s, 177, 181

Russet-capped, 29
Savannah, 117
Shannon’s Seaside, 187
Song, 10, 11, 89, 117
Spotted-breasted, 29
Swamp, 49
Tree, 117

White-crowned, 117
White-throated, 117
Yellow-winged, 29
Speotyto cunicularia, 104

cunicularia hypogaea, 104, 174
Sphyrapicus varius, 39
Spinus pinus, 30, 187
Spizella arborea, 29

Starling, 40, 65-75, 115, 118, 119, 176.
235

Sterna antillarum, 27, 173
Stork, 88, 101
Streptopelia risoria, 186
Sturnus vulgaris, 40, 176, 235
Swallow, Bank, 39, 118
Barn, 107, 118
Cliff, 43, 239
Northern Cliff, 175
Tree, 118

Swan, Whistling, 167, 168
Swift, Chimney, 45, 74, 180
Tanager, Red, 29
Teal, Blue-wing, 118, 171, 172
Telmatodytes palustrus griseus, 40
p. palustris, 30
Tern, Black, 119, 173

Common, 107, 119, 181, 227
Least, 173
Noddy, 56
Sooty, 56

Thamnobia cambaiensis, 90
fulicata, 90

Thrasher, Brown, 55, 94, 115, 187
Thrush, Gray-cheeked, 30
Hermit, 30, 42
Olive-backed, 30, 42
Willow, 176
Wilson’s, 30
Wood, 30, 55

Thryothorus ludovicianus, 48, 90
Titmouse, Black-crested, 90
Totanus flavipes, 173
Towhee, Arctic, 43
Eastern, 43
Red-eyed, 116

Toxostoma rufum, 115, 187
Tringa solitaria, 173
Troglodytes aedon, 30, 132, 140, 175
a. parkmani, 175

T urdus migratorius achrusterus, 13, 17
m. migratorius, 13, 17
m. propinquus, 17

256

The Wilson Bulletin — December, 1932

Turkey, 102, 118
Wild, 99

Turnstone, Ruddy, 172
Tympanuchus americanus, 106
cupido americanus, 237
c. cupido, 28

Tyto alba pratincola, 28, 38
Uria 1. lomvia, 239
Vermivora celata, 176, 234
peregrina, 177
Vireo, Blue-headed, 48
flavifrons, 29, 48, 233
griseus maynardi, 187
Key West, 187
Mountain, 117
Philadelphia, 116, 238
philadelphicus, 117
Red-eyed, 39, 1 16
solitarius, 48
White-eyed, 116, 238
Yellow-throated, 48, 117, 233
Vultur atratus, 28
Vulture, 102

Warbler, Black and white, 26
Black and yellow, 29
Blackburnian, 57
Black-throated Blue, 48
Black-throated Green, 49
Blackpoll, 117
Blue and White, 29
Canada, 26, 49
Cape May, 48
Cerulean, 49
Collins’s, 187
Connecticut, 49
Florida Prairie, 187
Golden-winged, 57
Hooded, 26, 123
Kentucky, 187, 238
Louisiana, 30
Magnolia, 117
Mourning, 177
Myrtle, 29

Northern Parula, 48
Northern Pine, 49
Orange-crowned, 177, 234
Pine, 55
Prairie, 233
Prothonotary, 48, 109
Rufous, 90
Swainson’s, 57
Tennessee, 177
Western Palm, 238
Yellow, 108
Water thrush, 26
Grinnell’s, 177
Water Turkey, 101, 161
Waxwing, Cedar, 170, 176, 183
Bohemian, 240
Whip-poor-will, 117
Willet, Eastern, 46
Western, 47, 181
Wilsonia canadensis, 49
pusilla, 30
Wooocdck, 181
Woodpecker, Downy, 43
Hairy, 44, 45
Ivory-hilled, 28
Pileated, 118, 123
Red-bellied, 39, 239
Red cockaded, 44
Red-headed, 39, 43, 44
Wren, 92, 106, 108
Carolina, 48, 90
House, 43, 136, 140, 175
Longbilled Marsh, 40
Marsh, 108
Prairie Marsh, 181
Rock, 43

Short-billed Marsh, 181
Worthington’s Marsh, 40
Yellow-legs, 47
Lesser, 173

Yellow-throat, Northern, 117
Maryland, 57

Zenaidura macroura carolinensis, 115

TO OUR CONTRIBUTORS

Our members are urged to submit articles for publication in the Bulletin.
Short items are desired for the department of General Notes, as well as longer
contributions, especially pertaining to life-history, migration, ecology, behavior,
song, economic ornithology, field equipment and methods, etc. Local faunal lists
are also desired, but they should be annotated, at least briefly, and should be
based upon sufficient study to be reasonably complete. Authors are asked to
include the common name, the scientific name (from the A. 0. U. check-list), and
annotations, and they should be arranged in this order. The annotations should
include explicit data concerning unusual species. Omit serial numbering.

The Manuscript. The manuscript, or copy, should be prepared with due regard
for literary style, correct spelling and punctuation. Use sheets of paper of good
quality and of letter size (8*4 x 11 inches) ; write on one side only, and leave
wide margins, using double spacing and a reasonably fresh, black ribbon.

The title should be carefully constructed so as to indicate most clearly the
nature of the subject matter of the contribution. Where the paper deals with a
single species it is desirable to include in the title both the common and the
scientific names, or, to include the scientific name in the introductory paragraph.
Contributors are requested to mark at the top of the first page of the manuscript
the number of words contained. This will save the editor’s time and will be
appreciated.

Manuscripts intended for publication in any particular issue should be in the
hands of the editor sixty to ninety days prior to the date of publication.

Illustrations. To reproduce well prints should have good contrast with detail.
In sending prints the author should attach to each one an adequate description
or legend.

Bibliography. The scientific value of some contributions is enhanced by an
accompanying list of works cited. Such citations should be complete, giving
author’s name, full title of the paper, both the year and volume of the periodical,
and pages, first and last.

Proof. Galley proof will be regularly submitted to authors. Page proofs will
be submitted only on request. Proof of notes and short articles will not be sub-
mitted unless requested. All proofs must be returned within four days. Expensive
changes in copy after the type has been set must be charged to the author.

Separates. The Club is unable, under present financial conditions, to furnish
reprints to authors gratis. Arrangements will be made, however, for such reprints
to be obtained at practically cost. The cost will vary somewhat with the nature
of the composition, but will depend mainly upon the number of pages. A scale of
rales is appended which will serve as a guide to the approximate printer’s costs.

If a blank page is left in the folding this may be used for a title page, which
will be set and printed at the rate indicated. If a complete cover with printed
title page is desired it may be obtained at the rate shown in the last column.
All orders for separates must accompany the returned galley proof upon blanks
provided. Orders cannot be taken after the forms have been taken down.

Copies

2

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

Cover

50

...$1.25

$2.00

$3.50

$4.75

$6.00

$7.75

$8.50

$9.75

$11.00

$12.25

$13.50

$2.50

100

... 1.50

2.25

3.75

5.00

6.25

7.50

8.75

10.00

11.25

12.50

13.75

2.75

200

... 2.00

2.75

4.25

5.50

6.76

8.00

9.25

10.50

11.75

13.00

14.25

3.00

300

... 2.75

3.50

5.00

6.25

7.50

8.75

10.00

11.25

12.50

13.75

15.00

4.00

400

... .3.25

4.00

5.50

6.75

8.00

9.25

10.50

11.75

13.00

14.25

15.50

5.00

500

... 3.75

4.50

6.00

7.25

8.50

9.75

11.00

12.25

13.50

14.76

16.00

6.00

OVU o.io -*.00

Repairing: — 25c per page extra. Title Page— $1.25.

Tjimiiiiiiiiiiniiin 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 linn iimiiniii mi 1 1111111111 mi 111111111111111 nil 111111111111111111

\

Dues for 1933

Annual Dues for 1933 Are Now Payable

This is the Treasurer’s first notice to all members that
dues for 1933 are now due and payable to the Treasurer

MR. W. M. ROSENE,

City State Bank,

Ogden, Iowa.

You are earnestly requested to remit at your earliest con-
venience, thus saving postage to the Club, and much time
and effort to the Treasurer. A receipt will be returned

only if requested.

Life Members $100.00

Sustaining Members 5.00

Active Members 2.50

Associate Members 1.50

The Club values the continued support of every member,
and every resignation is received with regret.

The reports of the officers for 1932 will be published in
the March number. They will be of interest to those who
wish to follow the affairs of the organization closely. In
round numbers the income of the Club was $500 less than
last year. We closed the present year (mid-November)
with a bank balance of $547.52. about two hundred dollars
less than it was a year ago. This safe balance was made
possible by a reduction of expenses, chiefly in the size of
the Bulletin, and by the earnest efforts of the President
and Secretary. We should endeavor to provide for such a
balance, for it insures our solvency to the close of the cal-
endar year and covers the cost of the current issue of the
Bulletin which is in press.

Our members can help the officers wonderfully this year
by paying dues as promptly as possible, so that we may
have an early knowledge of our resources and make plans
accordingly.

In behalf of the officers of the Club the Wilson Bul-
letin extends the greetings of the season to all of its read-
ers, and wishes to thank them for their loyal and generous
support.

iiMimiiMiiiiiiiimmiiiiiiiiiiiiMmiiiiiiiiMimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiMmiimiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiimiimiiiiiiiiimii

c